Bishop Hill ICO meets with universities
Oct 7, 2010 FOI The Times Higher Ed Supp reports that the Information Commissioner has met with the umbrella body for UK universities to discuss their alleged difficulties with complying with freedom of information legislation.
A meeting between UUK and the body was held last week and chaired by David Eastwood, vice-chancellor of the University of Birmingham. It concluded that universities needed sector-specific guidance to comply with the law.
A spokeswoman for the Information Commissioner's Office said: "We acknowledge the challenges that research units face, often because FoI requests relate to material that may span several years of research. Nonetheless, all requests must be handled in line with the legislation."
UUK will now appoint a panel to help draw up the guidelines.
I fail to see how material spanning several years of research is a problem under FoI.
Reader Comments (12)
Indeed. Research units should, as a matter of course, archive all material. The duration of the research should not affect the ability to respond to FoI requests. This suggests that the Information Commissioner not understand how reearch should be performed and archived.
The reason they have difficulties is that the words Quality Control are not understood by most University research departments, most of whom don't know what the word archive means.
It would be good if, as part of this work, the ICO actually quantified the number of FOI requests that each University is typically having to service, what area they relate to (admin, finance, research, etc etc) and the effort involved in complying with them.
In the case of CRU the constant refrain has been how they were inundated with onerous requests to the point they were unable to function. However IIRR the requested data was supplied to "approved parties" and, if proper attitudes and data management had been in place, servicing the "non approved parties" would have been a trivial matter.
I sympathise with Universities perhaps feeling they are facing a potentially huge task but I think some realistic analysis will show this is most unlikely.
Peer review is supposed to be replicated is it not? I know it's not in climate science, but I assumed it was meant to be.
So if research is to be published, it should include ALL data and relevant code needed to repeat said research, by anyone so inclined, not just friendly reviewers.
This is not some cornucopian wish, this is the minimum standard.
They don't need "sector specific guidance" they just have to meet the minimum standard. If there are commercial reasons to with-hold data, then they should not publish - or use public funds for that particular research.
Anyone arguing commercial confidentiality for climate data has an alterer motive IMO.
As someone heavily involved in QA, QA is seen as burden... that phrase is a real give-away: "We acknowledge the challenges that research units face, often because FoI requests relate to material that may span several years of research."
The point is with good QA the RESEARCH IS IMPROVED!!! Not just for the "outsiders" but also for the research graduates following on. When I did my engineering degree many of the final year projects were carried on from previous years. We had to document everything and lodge a copy (at our own expense) in the faculty library.
The reason Open Source has been so successful is that the QA is built into the processes. And a survival of the fittest system reigns. Because the number of contributors is large and the turnover high for large projects.
The whole point about QA is to STREAMLINE PROCESSES and FIND/SOLVE PROBLEMS. Such efforts in QA are more cost effective the earlier they occur in the project life cycle.
This is all about QA. QA is all about improvement, not making a burden. Solve the QA problems early and you leverage the work of those who came before.
"I fail to see how research going back a couiple of years is a problem"
Have you ever tried to collate research notes going back a couple of years, when those note are written on the back of fag packets, pizza boxes, and soiled napkins. Thought not.
What about if you based your theories on research written in a foreign language, and you just relied on someone elses interpretation, rather than an authenticated translation?
@golf
So in that case we have to rely on some the select few who understand the significance and meaning of each artifact?
So then why when I read the paper should I trust the results?
Have you ever opened Darwin's Origin of Species, one of the most boring books ever written... but he knew how to take notes and makes references. And for a theory that at the time was even more controversial than CAGW.
Jiminy Cricket
Er yes, sorry but the dog ate the pizza box
Jiminy:
You are so correct about QA. A proper QA system should mean that everything is correctly documented and archived, not on the back of fag packets, pizza boxes, and soiled napkins. Good QA is cost effective in the long term. I worked under a very good QA system for over 30 years and it was so beneficial to be able to retrieve anything going back over that whole period. Initially it was not so easy, because work was micro-fiched/filmed, but with the introduction of an electronic document management system, a couple of key strokes was all that was necessary. You could retrieve the original work, the verification, the reviewers comments, everything in fact.
Pete:
Peer review is not the same as replication/verification. But the complete dataset and methods should be available to the peer reviewers in order for them to do a comprehensive review. Likewise replication/verification needs the complete dataset and methods.
@golf... actually I thank you for comment,
... because it has struck me that Darwin created one of the most well researched "papers" that has stood the test of time for 150 years and has been the foundation of countless other studies. Many along the way have tried to disprove the theory and branch it... and have failed. One of the main reasons being the quality of the data, not just the summary (graphs).
150 years and still going strong... what a man... what a scientist...
Some of the climate "scientists" want the same global profile as Darwin, but their work?... do me a favour...
Jiminy Cricket
Didn't Darwin speculate on the possible link between bear/seal/whale evolution as opposed to man/bear/pig
@Phillip
Maybe engineering is different from science, but the faculty library was a real asset. Papers/Projects where micro-fiched in those days, as was the central index. The librarians were there to help in ANY information request. I even had to lodge my printed source code for my final year project.
And...the library was an open resource to the general public. Of course not many people just walked off the street, but they could.
Perhaps because engineers tend to be problem solvers information sharing is the "norm"...