How to Tackle All 4 Rubric Requirements
Three pages. Three sources. Four rubric criteria. One ethical issue in information technology that actually matters. Here’s how to pick the right topic, build an argument that evaluates rather than describes, cover the implications the rubric is looking for, and format the whole thing in APA without losing marks on technicalities.
Three pages sounds manageable. It is — until you realise the rubric wants you to evaluate an ethical issue, not describe it. That’s a different task. Description is “data mining collects personal information.” Evaluation is “data mining creates measurable power imbalances between corporations and individuals, and existing FTC frameworks are insufficient to address them.” That second one has an argument. This guide shows you how to get there.
What This Guide Covers
Assignment Requirements at a Glance
Before you write a single sentence, understand what the rubric is actually measuring. There are four criteria, and they’re not equal weight. The first two — evaluating the ethical issue and its implications — are where most of the marks live. APA and grammar are table stakes; you lose points for getting them wrong, but you don’t gain much for getting them right.
Paper Requirements Checklist
Choosing the Right Topic
The assignment gives you a long list of potential topics. That list is a starting point, not a limitation. The right question to ask isn’t “which one sounds interesting?” It’s “which one can I evaluate — not just describe — in three pages?”
Broad Topics Sink Papers. Specific Ones Don’t.
“Privacy protection” is too wide for three pages. “Workplace monitoring of remote employees and the erosion of reasonable privacy expectations” is a topic you can argue. “Data mining” is too wide. “Third-party data broker practices and the inadequacy of opt-out consent models” has a clear evaluative angle. The narrower and more specific your topic, the easier it is to build an argument — and the easier it is to find focused, relevant sources.
Practical test: Can you write one sentence that states your position on this issue — not just describes it? If not, the topic is still too broad, or you haven’t decided what you actually think about it yet.| Assignment Topic Area | Too Broad to Argue Well | Workable, Specific Angle |
|---|---|---|
| Workplace monitoring | Employers monitor employees | Keystroke logging and screen capture in remote work crosses ethical lines that productivity justifications don’t resolve |
| Data mining / property rights | Data mining raises privacy issues | Data brokers operate in a legal grey zone where individuals have no effective right to know what is collected or sold about them |
| BYOD | BYOD has security risks | BYOD policies create ethical conflicts when employer device management software accesses personal data on employee-owned devices |
| Digital divide / access | Not everyone has internet access | Mandatory digital service delivery by governments creates a structural equity problem when access is not guaranteed as a public utility |
| Biometric technology | Biometrics are used in many industries | Employer use of biometric time-tracking without meaningful consent violates fair information practice principles |
| Social media issues | Social media affects mental health and privacy | Algorithmic amplification of harmful content represents a failure of platform ethics that self-regulation has not resolved |
The assignment prompt specifically suggests this. A student in a cybersecurity track who writes about hacking ethics will write a better paper than one who writes about biometrics because they saw it on the list. Choose the topic where you already have context — you’ll find better sources, write more specifically, and your analysis will be stronger. If you’re heading into IT management, workplace monitoring is directly relevant. If you’re in software development, data property rights or AI ethics fit naturally.
Requirement 1: How to Evaluate a Cyberethics Issue
“Evaluate” is doing a lot of work in this rubric. It doesn’t mean list the pros and cons. It means examine the ethical dimensions of the issue using a framework, present evidence, and reach a reasoned conclusion. That’s closer to an argument than a summary.
Framework First, Then Evidence
Ground your analysis in a recognised ethical framework. You don’t need a philosophy lecture — a paragraph is enough. The most practical options for IT ethics papers: deontological ethics (is this action inherently right or wrong, regardless of outcome?), consequentialism / utilitarianism (what are the actual harms and benefits, and to whom?), or virtue ethics (what would a person of good character do in this role?). The ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct is also a usable framework specifically for IT professionals.
Practical approach: State the framework in your introduction. Apply it explicitly in your analysis section — “Under a consequentialist lens, the harm to individual users outweighs the operational benefit to the employer because…” Don’t just name-drop the framework and move on.What “Evaluate” Looks Like in Practice
Take a position. Back it with evidence. Address the counterargument. Reach a conclusion. For example, on workplace monitoring:
- State what the practice is and why employers use it
- Identify the ethical tension (productivity vs. privacy)
- Apply a framework to that tension
- Cite evidence on actual employee impact
- Address the employer’s counterargument briefly
- State your evaluative conclusion — is this ethical, unethical, or conditionally acceptable?
Ethical Frameworks to Choose From
Pick one and use it consistently — don’t mix three frameworks halfway through.
- Deontological — rights-based; is the action itself wrong?
- Consequentialist — outcomes-based; who is harmed and how much?
- Virtue ethics — character-based; what would a responsible IT professional do?
- ACM Code of Ethics — profession-specific; directly applicable to IT contexts
- Fair information practice principles — regulatory; notice, choice, access, security, enforcement
A paper that spends two pages explaining what data mining is and one page saying “this raises ethical concerns” has not evaluated anything. The grader is looking for your analysis — the reasoning that connects the facts to an ethical position. Every factual paragraph needs a “so what” that explicitly names the ethical dimension. If you can delete a paragraph and the argument still makes sense, that paragraph isn’t doing evaluative work.
Requirement 2: Implications for People and Technological Practices
This is a separate criterion from the ethical evaluation — and a lot of papers treat it as the same thing. It isn’t. Implications means: given this ethical issue, what actually changes or should change for the people involved and for how technology is built, deployed, or governed?
Implications for People and Implications for Practice Are Different Things
Implications for people means: who is affected, in what specific ways, and with what concrete consequences? Not “employees feel uncomfortable.” Something you can point to — loss of autonomy, measurable stress indicators, chilling effect on communication, differential impact on protected groups. The more specific, the better. Implications for technological practices means: what should change in how systems are designed, how policies are written, what defaults are used, what professionals in the field are ethically obligated to do differently?
Tip: Use your ethical framework to generate the implications. If you argued deontologically that keystroke logging violates a duty to respect employee autonomy, the implication for practice is that IT systems should be designed with minimal data collection as a default, not maximal. The argument and the implications should be connected, not separate.Direct Effects on People
Privacy loss, autonomy reduction, differential harm across demographics, chilling effects on behaviour, power imbalances between institutions and individuals.
Effects on Institutions
Liability exposure, reputational risk, employee trust and retention, legal compliance burden, cultural shifts in what practices are normalised.
What Needs to Change
Design ethics (privacy by default), policy frameworks, professional codes of conduct, audit mechanisms, what IT practitioners are obligated to consider during system design.
Paper Structure: Three Pages, Four Sections
Three pages double-spaced at Times New Roman 12pt is roughly 750–900 words of body text. That’s not a lot. Every paragraph has to earn its place. Here’s a structure that covers all four rubric criteria without wasting space.
Introduction — State the Issue and Your Position (roughly half a page)
Name the specific issue, give context for why it matters in an IT ethics context, state the ethical framework you’ll apply, and end with a clear thesis — your evaluative position on the issue. Don’t spend a full page on background. Get to the argument fast.
Ethical Analysis — Apply the Framework to the Issue (roughly one full page)
This is Criterion 1. Apply your chosen framework to the specific practices, decisions, or systems involved in your topic. Use evidence from your sources. State the ethical problem clearly and make your argument — don’t just describe what happens.
Implications — For People and for Technological Practice (roughly one full page)
This is Criterion 2. Two paragraphs works here: one on the human implications (who is affected, how, and what the concrete consequences are), one on what technological practices or policies should change as a result. Be specific. Cite evidence where available.
Conclusion — Summarise the Argument and State Your Recommendation (half a page)
Restate your thesis without just repeating your introduction. Summarise the evaluative argument. End with a concrete recommendation — what should be done, by whom, and on what grounds. A paper that ends with “this is a complex issue that needs further study” has not concluded.
The assignment specifies a title page, table of contents, and reference page. These are in addition to the three body pages — they don’t count toward the minimum. Use the same section headings in your table of contents as in the body of the paper. APA 7th edition has specific formatting for each of these elements — the citation and referencing guide on this site covers the current format.
Source Strategy: Finding Three Academic References
Three sources is the minimum. Realistically, a three-page argument on a complex IT ethics issue needs at least one source for background/context, one for your ethical analysis, and one for the implications section. The quality of your sources directly affects the quality of your argument — you can’t evaluate an issue well with weak evidence.
Where to Search
IT ethics research lives in a few key databases. Start here:
- IEEE Xplore — technology ethics, cybersecurity ethics, AI ethics
- ACM Digital Library — computing ethics, software ethics, social implications of computing
- EBSCO / Business Source Complete — workplace monitoring, BYOD, data privacy in organisations
- JSTOR — broader ethics, law and technology
- Google Scholar — good for finding articles, but verify they’re peer-reviewed before citing
What Qualifies as Academic
Peer-reviewed journal articles are the gold standard. These also work:
- Books published by academic presses (MIT Press, Oxford, Cambridge)
- Government reports (FTC, NIST, European Commission)
- Professional organisation publications (ACM, IEEE, ISACA)
- Not acceptable: Wikipedia, news sites, company blogs, personal websites, non-peer-reviewed magazines
The ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (Association for Computing Machinery, 2018) is a citable professional standard directly relevant to IT ethics papers. It covers computing professionals’ responsibilities regarding privacy, data security, harm avoidance, and public interest. It’s freely available and carries institutional authority. For privacy-focused topics, the FTC’s annual Privacy and Data Security Update gives current regulatory context with real case examples — that’s the kind of concrete evidence that strengthens an evaluation of whether current practices are adequate.
APA Formatting Tips for This Paper
APA 7th edition is what the assignment specifies. The most common errors in IT ethics papers aren’t obscure — they’re the same handful of mistakes every time.
Every Factual Claim Needs One
If you state a fact, a statistic, a finding, or someone else’s argument, cite it. Format: (Author, Year) or (Author, Year, p. X) for direct quotes. Don’t save citations for the end of a paragraph.
Hanging Indent, Alphabetical
Journal article format: Author, A. A. (Year). Title of article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages. https://doi.org/xxxxx — DOI is required when available in APA 7th.
Use APA Level Headings
For a three-page paper, Level 1 headings (centred, bold, title case) for main sections are appropriate. Consistent heading levels signal structure to the reader and the grader.
Student Format (APA 7th)
Paper title, your name, institution name, course name and number, instructor name, due date. Centred, double-spaced. No running head required for student papers in APA 7th.
Include Retrieval Date When Content Changes
For government or organisation websites that update regularly, include “Retrieved [date], from [URL]” in the reference. For stable academic sources, the URL alone is sufficient.
Top Right, Starting at Title Page
APA 7th places page numbers in the header, flush right. The title page is page 1. Body text begins on page 2 (after the abstract, if required — check your assignment instructions).
Mistakes That Get Points Deducted
Describing Instead of Evaluating
A paper that explains what workplace monitoring is for two pages without ever taking an ethical position on it has answered the wrong question. The rubric says “evaluate” — that requires a judgment, not a report.
State Your Position Clearly
In your introduction, say what you argue — not just what you’ll discuss. “This paper argues that employer keystroke monitoring crosses an ethical threshold that productivity justifications cannot override.” That’s an evaluative thesis.
Treating “Implications” as a One-Liner
Writing one vague sentence about “society being affected” in the conclusion. The rubric gives implications its own criterion — it needs its own substantive section.
Separate People and Practice
Dedicate at least one paragraph each to human implications (who, how, concretely) and technological practice implications (what should change in how systems are designed or governed). Cite evidence for both.
Using Non-Academic Sources
Citing news articles, company websites, or Wikipedia as sources. These don’t meet the “academic” standard the rubric requires, and the grader will notice.
Use IEEE Xplore or ACM Digital Library
Search your topic + “ethics” in IEEE Xplore or ACM Digital Library. Filter by peer-reviewed. The ACM Code of Ethics is a reliable citable source for any IT ethics paper and is freely accessible online.
Picking a Topic Too Broad to Argue in 3 Pages
“Internet privacy” as a topic means you’ll spend all three pages on background and never get to analysis. Three pages can’t contain a field. It can contain one specific, well-argued point about one specific practice.
Narrow to One Practice or Policy
Pick one specific practice — keystroke logging, opt-out consent for data brokers, employer MDM software on personal devices. Three pages on a narrow topic is a stronger paper than two pages of background and one page of vague analysis on a broad one.
Frequently Asked Questions
Need Help With an IT Ethics Research Report?
From cyberethics papers and programming assignments to full research reports and APA-formatted academic writing — our IT and computer science writing team covers undergraduate and graduate-level work.
CS Assignment Help Get StartedThe Argument Is the Paper
Most students who struggle with this assignment aren’t struggling because they don’t know enough about IT ethics. They’re struggling because they’re writing a report when the rubric wants an argument. A report tells you what exists. An argument tells you what to think about what exists, and why.
The moment you can write a single clear sentence — “I argue that [specific practice] is ethically problematic because [specific reason], and this requires [specific change] in how IT practitioners approach [specific design or policy decision]” — you have the spine of the whole paper. Every paragraph either supports that sentence, provides evidence for it, or draws out its implications.
Three pages is short. Short papers require more discipline, not less. Cut the background to the minimum needed to understand the issue. Get to the argument fast. Use every paragraph to advance the case. And check the rubric before you submit — not after.