All maps have the power to lie. With such power comes great responsibility on the part of the map-maker. Understanding how to remain objective, be thorough, and be able to justify decisions is a vital aspect of good cartographic practice. Discussions, debates, and statements on the value and purpose of maintaining an ethical approach to making maps have been ongoing for decades. A recent discussion of relevance for the production of cartographic products was clearly articulated by Obermeyer (2021) who identified four types of ethics, namely professional, code-based, virtue, and practical. These are, to an extent, overlapping but they establish reasonable rules and behaviours, norms, boundaries, the conditions for honesty and integrity, fairness and competency, as well as what to be and how to have good internalized intentions that lead to positive results and actions.
The Locus Charter seeks to improve the standards of practice in the geo-sphere more generally and lists ten founding principles that are intended as a call for action, and a mantra we can abide by as geo-professionals more generally. It’s worth exploring the descriptions in detail but in outline, these principles are:
• Realize opportunities
• Understand impacts
• Do no harm
• Protect the vulnerable
• Address bias
• Minimize intrusion
• Minimize data
• Protect privacy
• Prevent identification of individuals
• Provide accountability
The British Cartographic Society (BCS) are one of the few organisations that I am aware of who specify a code of ethics for members (including myself as a Fellow of BCS) to abide by. Ratified by the BCS Council in July 2020, it’s a community-driven core set of values framed around five main themes namely:
• Honesty
• Integrity
• Competence
• Respect
• Responsibility
I encourage you to head to their site for more detail on each of these but they are sound principles and a strong guiding philosophy.
In my book Cartography. I also explored the issue of ethics, and the sort of behaviours that might establish ethical cartographic practice. All too often maps might be regarded as ineffective and poor because they may fail in varying ways and to widely varying degrees. They may be accidentally disingenuous about the content; use misguided construction or techniques; or they may even be deliberately designed to be persuasive or propagandist. Whether accidentally or deliberately, it’s entirely possible to make a map in ways that might misconstrue meaning and raise questions about the authority of the map, and map-maker.
But maps are made by humans, and are therefore inevitably going to contain errors. Errors may result from oversight, poor judgement, or a reliance on software defaults but, sometimes, as a consequence of deliberate action. Mapping is not an exact science; there is no single correct way to make the map, and neither is there a wholly incorrect way (though some techniques can be applied incorrectly or poorly). Maps can misrepresent even when the motive is to work toward a map that minimizes the potential for misunderstanding.
Borden Dent defined a potential code of ethics for mapmakers in his excellent book Thematic Map Design (2008), which I updated and modified in my own book. I think they provide a useful practical way of thinking about, and applying the concepts that are described by Obermeyer, and in The Locus Charter, and the BCS code to the practice of making maps:
• have a straightforward agenda, and purpose;
• strive to know your audience (the map reader);
• do not intentionally lie with data;
• show all relevant data whenever possible;
• don’t discard data because it might be contrary;
• strive for accurate portrayal of the data;
• avoid plagiarising; report all data sources;
• ensure symbols don’t bias the interpretation of the map;
• the map should be able to be repeated by others;
• be attentive to differing cultural values and principles; and
• don’t let defaults drive your design.
I’d also add that as practicing cartographers we might also remain aware of our own shortcomings. We sometimes make mistakes. We should own them, apologise, and make right the error where possible. We might also recognise that we can’t possibly know everything, and seek advice, and support from peers where necessary.
What I do feel is important is that most of these codes, whether a list of ideals in a book, or something more formal should be principles that guide us, and not regimented ‘rules’ meted out by professional bodies. I like the BCS effort but it’s not heavy-handed, and there are far more map-makers in the world than BCS members, or members of any society for that matter. The world has moved well beyond professional cartography being governed by societies and professional organisations. What is really needed is not a top-down approach, but, rather, a community driven approach that makers of maps of all types, and of all experiences, can view as helpful in guiding their own work.
Particularly in a post-truth world our individual, and collective professional and ethical responsibility is to be guided by these types of codes which guide us to deliver maps that people can genuinely trust. As I said in the opening, all maps lie, but some maps lie more than others, and minimizing the spectrum from gratuitous to accidental lies has to be paramount. The little white lies we infuse maps with to make the main message clearer, and which do no harm – I’m fine with those.