How better information management could minimise disasters

The following article was submitted by Katharine Schopflin.

Image c/o Eric the Fish on Flickr

I recently attended a talk given by Jan Parry, who provided information and research support to the Hillsborough Independent Panel, which, in 2012, oversaw the disclosure of public documents related to the 1989 disaster. Their website provides very clear background on what happened on 15th April 1989, as well as outlining the work they did to gather related documents and make them publicly available. I should state that the following is entirely my own interpretation: Jan’s measured, even-handed talk was essentially factual and did not offer up any opinions on either the disaster or the work of the Panel. But it made me think about the information public organisations hold, how they use it, and its value for preventing disasters and revealing facts. I’ve selected a couple of things from Jan’s very fulsome talk, and any mistakes in reporting are my own misremembering or misinterpretation.

Jan began by showing us the map of the Hillsborough ground which was used on the day. This plan both showed and lacked information pertinent to what happened. Much has been written about the power of maps to give and withhold information: they are representations and a choice is always made about what is included and how it is shown. This map shows how space was constricted at the Leppings Lane end of the ground but is limited in representing how confusing the divided inner concourse was for supporters, nor exactly how uneven the distribution of turnstiles was, things which had they been more apparent might have encouraged different policing decisions.  Jan also mentioned information that was available about previous (non-fatal) crushing incidents at Hillsborough and the results of the report into the Bradford City ground, which identified the dangers of using ‘pens’ in football terraces. These were not considered as part of plans for crowd control during the match.

As well as information which was available, but was ignored, some information was out of date. The police Operational Plan, which exists for every football match, had not been updated since the two teams last met at the ground the previous year. From a knowledge management point of view, both teams having met at the same ground for the 1988 semi-final could have provided useful learning points to inform a new Operational Plan, but if there was a debrief of police officers present at the previous match, it was not added to it. And in this case, knowledge transfer was vital, as the Match Commander in 1989 had no experience at Hillsborough. Other information could have been added to the plan: roadworks which made many Liverpool fans late are thought to have contributed to the crowding which built up at the Leppings Lane entrance. I’m not in a position to judge whether having a better map of the ground, an up-to-date operational plan, or more shared experience about managing a match at the ground, would have prevented the disaster. But these seem to me to be vital pieces of knowledge which needed to be expressed, and once expressed, shared and made explicit.

Jan also talked at length about the evidence gathered in the lengthy series of inquiries and investigations which followed the disaster. The stated purpose of the Panel was to allow documents related to the disaster to be released into the public domain ahead of the usual 30 years, but in the process an enormous amount of information was assembled together for the first time. Each contributing organisation: the government, police authorities, coroner’s service and NHS were asked to scan, digitise, redact and catalogue these documents with Home Office support. Some of the documents had always been available, but not read as significant. South Yorkshire Police happily released material which illustrated that some police statements had been edited before being made public, but did not see that this might have damaged earlier investigations. Many of these documents are now being used as new evidence and cases are being reopened.

One of the recommendations from the Panel was that public bodies such as police authorities and the coroner’s office should have a mandate to manage and keep their records (something which surprised me was not already the case). South Yorkshire Police had been going to dispose of some of the records which they instead gave to the Panel, and were within their rights to do so. Of course there are limits to ‘just in case’ record-keeping, but these public sector bodies could, if they had wished, destroyed information pertinent to new investigations. If the suggestions are followed, they will have a responsibility to keep records and manage them in a way that enables them to be found again. This seems essential to me if we want to be able to prevent or subsequently investigate significant events in the future.

However, I think this alone is not enough. Public sector information also needs to be joined up and exposed to analysis, in a way that modern technology now makes possible. Take the absence of information about road works in Operational Plan for the match at Hillsborough in April 1989. Modern data analytics tools enable police to combine public domain data about planned roadworks, standard traffic flows and their own knowledge of expected crowds to build a clear picture of what the outside of any stadium turnstile will look like just before a match. And this isn’t a theoretical picture, an actual map illustrating anticipated road and person congestion at any time of the day could be generated without difficulty. The guidance on policing football matches is undoubtedly more sophisticated now as a result of lessons learned from Hillsborough. Whether or not they have these kinds of tools at their disposal I do not know, but it is surely vital that they do.

Similarly, every investigation into a large-scale disaster or act of violence that I have read about has indicated that joining up information at an earlier date could have prevented death or injury or at the very least found answers to questions asked by victims or their families. Once disparate information is brought together it becomes clear if something in the situation is or was ‘not right’. Indeed, it was with these ideas in mind that the Home Offices large-scale IT systems, HOLMES and HOLMES2 were introduced across police services in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s. Many local authorities are to be lauded for releasing data into the public domain, but it is by no means mandated across all public bodies. Technology has created great possibilities for manipulating data, but it needs to be available to begin with. This requires public bodies to maintain their records and, within reasonable and compliant limits, make them available as early as possible. The technology and analytical expertise exist. Opening up the data also needs to follow.

Voluntarily confused

Jennie Findlay and Lorna Robertson are both experienced information professionals, working in the legal sector, and have been active members of CILIP for a substantial period of time.

Introduction

As background to this post we are both Chartered and revalidated members of CILIP, active mentors and one of us volunteered with the Career Development Group for 10 years.

One of us wrote a blog post on the problems they had encountered with using the CILIP Virtual Learning Environment in December 2013. In February 2014, they wrote another post about the issues they felt are caused by a professional qualification system being run almost entirely by volunteers. In March, we both attended an “exchange of experience” session, discussing the VLE and the mentoring system with other mentors. Following on from that event, we have continued to have worries about how the new Body of Professional Knowledge systems are being run and supported, and we are not alone. Our concerns are shared by other information professionals, and this concern has motivated us to co-write this post.

 

Current Problems

Volunteer Sign

Volunteer sign.
(Image c/o Jacob Moyer on Flickr.)

A core purpose of a professional body is enabling its members to act as competent and ethical professionals, and to do this it means that the body should be providing professional training to those members to fulfil those needs. However, at present most training provided by CILIP is carried out by volunteers in the branches and groups.It may be that CILIP members are often not aware that the people running training events in their local areas are not actually paid CILIP staff, but volunteers, usually fitting in these commitments around their own jobs. The expectations of attendees are that communications relating to events will be prioritised, and our experience is that they can often become annoyed when they do not get what they perceive to be an efficient or rapid response. There can also be issues when the training is being provided by inexperienced staff: the information being given can be inaccurate, and confusing. We ourselves have experienced this recently, when attending a demonstration of the VLE, given by volunteers. The information given at this event was inaccurate, or conflicted with the information given in the formal training provided directly by CILIP via a WebEx demonstration.

Participation in the Certification/Chartership/Revalidation/Fellowship system is currently voluntary. If and when involvement becomes obligatory (as is proposed), this will be an even greater burden on the current mentors, trainers, support officers and assessors. Can a system such as this, which will be a core component of the benefit of CILIP membership, be implemented effectively by volunteers when every member is expected to participate in it?

We were informed during the recent event that we attended that CILIP is trying to sell the PKSB “package” to other professional bodies. This in itself is not an issue: it is obviously going to be a priority of CILIP to get the maximum value for the members from its assets. However, it would be interesting to know whether they are selling the PKSB system as one which will need salaried staff to run, or whether they are promoting it as a volunteer based system?

Volunteers are not compensated or recognised for their contributions to the running of their professional body. There are many people involved in the activities that CILIP provide: people running social events, training events, providing mentoring support, and assessing professional qualification submissions. We were quoted a figure of 650 people who were currently registered as mentors – that is a LOT of people supporting the mentoring system alone. It seems unfair that those people are having to pay one of the highest membership fees in the information professional field, in order to give their time and skills to run core CILIP services and member benefits.

There is currently also a worryingly high level of confusion in communications coming from CILIP. It can be hard to differentiate between emails from groups, branches and CILIP, and the different areas don’t always give the same advice. Information which comes from volunteers in the groups can be inconsistent, for example information on what areas in the VLE mentors should be able to access, from MSOs. Or are just wrong – one author recently got an email telling them to select a new group as the Career Development Group no longer exists but they had already changed groups in December so they were no longer in the CDG. This confusion and inconsistency in the provision of basic information undermines members confidence in their professional body.

 

Other Professional Bodies

So, are the professional qualifications schemes of other professional bodies run by volunteers too? We had a quick (non-comprehensive) look to see who else expects their members to volunteer to provide CPD opportunities or run core events for other members.

  • The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has an Assessment of Professional Competence (APC) system. The APC appears to be a work based, long-term qualification similar to an apprenticeship, which expects an applicant’s line manager to oversee the process. They have an event management team to run training. There appear to be no volunteers involved in events.
  • The Institute of Chartered Accountants has a CA qualification system. Similar to RICS, it’s a modern type of apprenticeship, with skills being developed and assessed within a role. There is a virtual mentoring system being introduced, but with no element of professional assessment. It appears that they have a “Member Engagement” team.
  • The Royal Pharmaceutical Society appears to have a mentoring scheme, which is undergoing redevelopment but it doesn’t look like there’s currently any element of professional assessment within it. It appears that they have an Events team.

It’s quite hard to compare systems, as CILIP needs to have a wide-ranging professional qualification system in order to encompass the wide variety of membership sectors, rather than the very specific and often intensive employment-based qualifications system some other bodies run. Also, most professional bodies tend to protect information by placing it within member-only areas, so some materials such as the specific details of training provision by the body are inaccessible to non-members.However, it appears from looking at CILIP’s website in a comparable way, that a significant proportion of events and professional visits/CPD are currently being provided by volunteers. In May, there are 3 official CILIP events, and 13 branch/group events (http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/events-calendar), and in June, there are 2 CILIP events, and 14 branch/group events. Knowing from personal experience that group events are run by volunteers and branch events may have support from local volunteers, this means that volunteers are providing five to six times the number of professional events that CILIP as a body provides. It also appears that the professional training that CILIP provides beyond this is organised by CILIP staff, although it is unclear if this is at an additional cost to recipients. In terms of the mentoring system, the website shows that the Professional Registration system requires the involvement of mentors/Candidate Support Officers, but does not explicitly state that those individuals are volunteers.

 

Suggestions

There needs to be greater clarity and publicity from CILIP around the fact that most of its member benefits are actually being provided by volunteers, and as such, the expectations of participants in such events must be lowered. This includes in respect of the time the organisers have available to respond to them, and the speed at which any queries can be dealt with.

Event organisation and management should rely less heavily on the work of volunteers. For a professional body to expect people to pay membership fees, and then to have events which should be a core membership benefit being run by people who have effectively paid for the privilege of providing a service to their professional body, is not acceptable.

If CILIP is going to introduce a compulsory element to the professional qualifications system, they need to assess whether continuing to run it through the efforts of volunteers is still appropriate, or whether they need to recruit for a level of staffing which will make it possible to support the system full time. If providing staffing to run the system is unachievable, they need to take a closer look at the role of volunteers within the system, and how to maintain their engagement and involvement with it.

Many volunteers give up huge amounts of their own free time to CILIP to provide services to members (10 days+ of annual leave per year for a couple of years for one of the authors) but this is unsustainable for any length of time, especially without “reward” or thanks of some sort. A system of reducing the steep membership fees in relation to the time spent working for CILIP should be achievable, with a bit of effort, and would act as a reward for the voluntary contribution of time and energy of the member. Activities which should trigger a reduction could be: being a mentor; being on a committee/board (although there is difficulty involved with assessing the level of activity there – some people join committees but don’t actually contribute); being an assessor; being a Mentor Support Officer etc. Having a system to enable members to be recognised and rewarded for the time and effort they give to CILIP would encourage these volunteers to retain their enthusiasm to support the system, particularly when revalidation becomes obligatory in the near future. Otherwise, as the demands on volunteers increase, the number of those willing to participate in supporting the system may well drop.

 

The public position of CILIP on volunteers

Another element of CILIP’s reliance on volunteers to run its services is its effect on the public and political view of the body. CILIP is, as of June 2012, officially on record as being opposed to the use of volunteers to deliver core services in libraries: “We do not believe that volunteers should undertake core service delivery”. However, it could be argued that by using volunteers itself to deliver its own core services to paying members, it is undermining its own stated position on the role of volunteers in core service provision. If our professional body is content to deliver its main services by using volunteers, what authority has it to say that others shouldn’t use volunteers too.

 

Declaration on open access for LIS authors

The idea for the Declaration on open access for LIS authors originally came from reading the article Librarian, Heal Thyself: A Scholarly Communication Analysis of LIS Journals (23 April) by Micah Vandegrift and Chealsye Bowley. The article raised the fact that LIS authors need to do more to support open access. There have been numerous declarations and petitions on open access which have done much to help define what it is and what steps people can take to make it a reality. A similar declaration specifically for academics and practitioners in the library and information professions will help to demonstrate our commitment to the principles of open access.

Open access is the practice of making academic research freely available for anyone to read and re-use. It means that rather than the results of research, such as journal articles, being locked away behind a paywall and only accessible to those who can afford it, anyone with access to the internet has the same opportunity to make use of the work. Open access does not solve all of the problems regarding information inequality but it is an important step towards doing so. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition for creating a more egalitarian and participatory academic culture, and it allows the fruits of publicly-funded research to be made available to the public.

In order to create the text of the declaration in support of these ideals, a Google doc was created which was open to anyone to contribute to. Over the next few weeks a number of people did just that, helping to transform the original idea into something more complete, coherent, and better written. This collaborative writing process was a working example of what can happen when you open up your ideas to the world and allow a conversation to develop around them.

Some interesting discussions arose in the comments, particularly around the issue of how strong to make the statement. A more hardline approach may be closer to the spirit which inspired it, but on the other hand a more cautious statement might have wider acceptance and attract more signatures. The final text hopefully found a good balance between these views, although this does leave the action points a bit more open to interpretation.

The second wave of enthusiasm for the declaration arose out of Radical Librarians Collective event in London on 10 May. A number of people pledged their support for the idea, some important amendments were made to the text, and Informed kindly agreed to host the declaration.

So now the final text of the Declaration on open access for LIS authors has been published and is open for signatures. If you are a librarian, student, LIS academic, or otherwise involved in research in this area, and you agree with the principles embodied in the declaration, then please add your name to make your voice heard.

The final text of the Declaration on open access for LIS authors was drafted by Stuart Lawson, Micah Vandegrift, Edgar Crook, and Charles Oppenheim; it incorporated recommended changes from Penny Andrews, Lauren Collister, and Kevin Sanders. Thanks to everyone involved (and any anonymous contributors) for their comments, amendments, drafting, and editing.

This post was partly self-plagiarised from my original CC-BY blog post about the idea.

By Stuart Lawson

Why I think boycotting The Sun newspaper is a good idea

In this article, the author raises their concerns about what materials can be viewed as appropriate for public libraries to stock, explains their position regarding why they believe The Sun cannot be regarded as suitable stock for a public library, and outlines why a public petition to remove it deserves support.

(Image c/o Liam Wilde on Flickr.)

I will jump right in and start with the biggest accusation, censorship. It’s a complicated subject and one that will have most liberals squirming in their seats. Where should a line be drawn between free speech /access to controversial publications and having respect for those who do not wish to see such resources? I think that throwing censorship at an argument shuts down discussion rather than opening it up for debate and becomes counterproductive.

Boycotting a product, organisation or even placing embargos on countries seems to be an effective and accepted way in which we use our collective disapproval of an action or product to put pressure on a company and make it change its ways. Yet when the company in question is a newspaper any criticism levelled against what they do is instantly branded as censorship.

Many women feel reluctant to speak out over issues that concern sexism as a torrent of online abuse, including violent threats, often follows and again this shuts down debate leaving concerns about sexism overlooked while mainstream sexism is allowed to thrive.

I am, for the record, against censorship. I respect the right for people to have different opinions to my own and I relish the opportunity to challenge them.  I believe that the current rules in which a library operates (CILIP guidelines) work perfectly well for the written word.  There is no need to change the way in which we select literature or buy books that may or may not offend the reader. The difference is that the reader can choose whether they want to access the book or not.

When it comes to The Sun that choice is removed. You cannot choose to ‘unsee’ a sexist image blazoned across the front page. It is difficult to avoid the full page soft porn that accompanies each issue, every day and tough not to see the derogatory and eroticised headlines that accompany stories of the crimes frequently committed against women.

To assert that a library operates with no bias, rules or filtering of material is an outright myth. The on-going debate about unrestricted access to the internet is a perfect example. Libraries already filter against materials and websites deemed to be inciting terrorism. This is presumably because we, as a society, believe that terrorism is something that we do not wish to facilitate or encourage and is detrimental to us as a community. I agree with this principle. We have guidelines and an ‘Acceptable Use Policy’ which states “Our network is filtered to block offensive or illegal material being viewed or downloaded in the library”. Again I agree with this policy. The library is a community resource and it aims to be inclusive even going so far as to state that the Council is “determined to remove discrimination”.

I believe that to use the CILIP guidelines for images such as those in The Sun does not keep up with the changing nature of materials available.  New guidelines are needed for visual imagery. It is irresponsible and unequal to put the rights of people wanting to view offensive material above those who don’t. Why are the needs of these people not as important when we argue about rights people have in the library environment?

Libraries attempt to avoid displaying offensive materials in line with local needs. They do not distribute leaflets for hate groups, nor do they permit the use of racist and abusive language for staff or public. This is because it goes against our beliefs of what is right in a community. To argue that libraries exist in a vacuum where anything goes in the name of free speech is simply untrue.

Libraries operate on a decreasing budget. Choices are made as to what may “educate and inspire” readers and to provide resources to a diverse community.  I am grateful that the library service I work for does not buy The Daily Sport or The Daily Star who along with The Sun were cited in evidence presented at the Leveson Enquiry into press standards as having “a tendency to uphold myths about domestic and sexual violence, prostitution and violence against ethnic minority women; news reporting which implicitly blames women for violence committed against them; and the normalization of images and stories which sexualize and objectify women.”

So what exactly is the problem with The Sun? The Sun has been criticized for eroticizing crimes against women, see recent example of this with the killing of Reeva Steenkamp. The paper regularly objectifies women and distorts news stories suggesting women are responsible for the crimes committed against them. They continually mock women in the public eye by trying to shame or humiliate them into being silent. Clare Short MP and Harriet Harman MP have both fallen prey to this.

It is the normalization of everyday sexism that we need to fight against. 30 universities in the UK stopped selling The Sun on their campuses as they saw a conflict between their own equality policies and the selling of a sexist newspaper. The Sun still exists. People are still free to buy it if they choose but these institutions have decided that the selling of this paper on their own campuses would render the universities own equality policies meaningless.

Likewise Tesco  and The Co-op supermarkets made the decision to cover or remove ‘lad’s mags’ such as Nut’s and Zoo because of their graphic front covers and misogynistic content were inappropriate to their wide customer base.

Currently, there is an online petition asking The Sun to remove the Page 3 topless full page image from its newspaper. It has been signed by 189,000 plus people including the signatures of 154 MP’s. The question of if Page 3 has a place in 21st Century Britain has recently been discussed in parliament but it continues to be printed.

“One in three women around the world will be raped, beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime” (2003 Unifem report). The normalizing and possible eroticizing of violent crimes against women and the daily objectification of women in newspapers such as The Sun perpetuate  the idea that women in our society are not respected and not taken seriously. Evidence presented to the Leveson Enquiry states “There is much evidence about the media’s role in providing a conductive context for violence against women to occur by condoning, tolerating and normalizing abuse of women”

Bizarrely, The Sun chooses not to show soft porn in their weekend issues as they see these editions as ‘family friendly”. I see my local library as a family friendly environment but am confused as to why The Sun and its soft porn, misogynistic content is accessible every day for all to see.

This article isn’t a criticism of the council I work for, in fact I think the beliefs and guidelines they hold dear on equality are commendable. I do understand the difficult position they are in being bound by the CILIP guidelines but there is a real conflict of interest.

I am delighted that this question and the introduction of the petition highlights an issue which has for too long been overlooked. Libraries need to move with the times and face up to the growing issues surrounding offensive imagery and how it is displayed or accessed. The voices of those who do not wish to be exposed to such material needs to be heard.

The real debate lays in what kind of society we want to live in. Can we accept the existence of offensive materials or publications that we don’t agree with without stocking them? Do the council’s standards on equality come before or after the rights of people wishing to access the materials in question? Do people who do not want to see offensive imagery have the same rights as those that do wish to see it? To say ‘anything goes’ in the name of free speech, is in my opinion a liberal cop out.

A. Ashcroft

*The views and opinions in this article belong to the author and not necessarily represent the views of any Council*

HEFCE’s new open-access policy for post-2014 outputs

The following post was published yesterday by Mike Taylor on his blog. It is reproduced here in full, courtesy of the CC BY license.

This morning sees the publication of the new Policy for open access in the post-2014 Research Excellence Framework from HEFCE, the Higher Education Funding Council for England. It sets out in details HEFCE’s requirement that papers must be open-access to be eligible for the next (post-2014) Research Excellence Framework (REF).

Here is the core of it, quoted direct from the Executive Summary:

The policy states that, to be eligible for submission to the post-2014 REF, authors’ final peer-reviewed manuscripts must have been deposited in an institutional or subject repository on acceptance for publication. Deposited material should be discoverable, and free to read and download, for anyone with an internet connection [...]  The policy applies to research outputs accepted for publication after 1 April 2016, but we would strongly urge institutions to implement it now.

There are lots of ifs, buts and maybes, but overall this is excellent news, and solid confirmation that the UK really is committed to an open-access transition. Before we go into those caveats, let’s take a moment to applaud the real, significant progress that this policy represents. For the first time ever, universities’ funding levels, and so individual academics’ careers, will be directly tied to the openness of their output. Congratulations to HEFCE!

Also commendable: the actual policy document is very carefully written, and includes details such as “Outputs whose text is encoded only as a scanned image do not meet the requirement that the text be searchable electronically.” It’s evident that a lot of careful thought has gone into this.

Now for those caveats:

The policy will not apply to monographs, book chapters, other long-form publications, working papers, creative or practice-based research outputs, or data.

This is a shame, but understandable, especially in the case of books. I would have hoped that chapters within edited volumes would have been included. Butthe main document notes that “Where a higher education institution (HEI) can demonstrate that it has taken steps towards enabling open access for outputs outside the scope of this definition, credit will be given in the research environment component of the post-2014 REF.”

Next disappointment:

The policy allows repositories to respect embargo periods set by publications. Where a publication specifies an embargo period, authors can comply with the policy by making a ‘closed’ deposit on acceptance. Closed deposits must be discoverable to anyone with an Internet connection before the full text becomes available for read and download (which will occur after the embargo period has elapsed). Closed deposits will be admissible to the REF.

I would of course have wanted all embargo periods to be eliminated, or at the very least capped at six months as in the old, pre-watering-down, RCUK policy. But that was too much to hope for in the political environment that publishers have somehow managed to create.

More positively, it’s a good sop that deposit must be made on acceptance — not when the embargo expires, or even on publication, but on acceptance. These “closed deposits” are like a formal promise of openness, with an automated implementation. We don’t have good experimental data on this, but it seems likely that this approach will result in much better compliance rates than just telling authors “you have to come back six to 24 months after publication and make a deposit”.

Third disappointment:

There are a number of exceptions to the various requirements that will be automatically allowed by the policy. These exceptions cover circumstances where deposit was not possible, or where open access to deposited material could not be achieved within the policy requirements. These exceptions will allow institutions to achieve near-total compliance, but the post-2014 REF will also include a mechanism for considering any other exceptional cases where an output could not otherwise meet the requirements.

The exceptions encourage weasel-wordage, of course, and some of the specific exceptions listed in Appendix C are particularly weak: “Author was unable to secure the use of a repository”, “Publication is print-only (no electronic version)”, and the lamentable “Publication does not offer a compliant green or gold option”, which really means “HEFCE authors should not be using this publication”.

But when you read into the details, this approach with specific exceptions is actually rather better than the alternative that had been on the table: a percentage-based target, where some specific proportion of REF submissions would need to be open access. Instead of saying “80% of submissions must be open access” (or some other percentage), HEFCE is saying that it wants them all to be open access except where a specific excuse is given. I’d like them to be much less accommodating with what excuses they’ll accept, but the important thing here is that they have set the default to open.

Now for the most regrettable part of the policy:

While we do  not request that outputs are made available under any particular licence, we advise that outputs licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Non-Derivative (CC BY-NC-ND) licence would meet this requirement.

I won’t rehearse again all the reasons that Non-Commercial and No-Derivatives clauses are poison, I’ll just note that works published under this licence are not open access according to the original definition of that term, which allows us to “use [OA works] for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers”.

Yet even here, the general tenor of the policy is positive. While it accepts NC-ND, the policy adds that “where an HEI can demonstrate that outputs are presented in a form that allows re-use of the work, including via text-mining, credit will be given in the research environment component of the post-2014 REF”.

One last observation: HEFCE should be commended on having provided an excellent, detailed explanation of feedback they received to their consultations. As always, reading such documents can be frustrating because they necessarily contain some views very different from mine; but it’s useful to see the range of opinions laid out so explicitly.

No open-access policy document I’ve ever seen has been perfect, and this one is no exception. But overall, the HEFCE open-access policy is a significant and welcome step forward, and carries the promise of further positive moves in the future.

Writing for Informed – call for submissions

We want Informed to be a space hosting content from those with an interest in a range of issues related to the information society. Whether you are an information professional or someone with an interest in the topic, we’d like to hear from you and share your thoughts and opinions on the big issues. This is a space to discuss the issues that you are interested in and spark some debate and discussion. Your contributions are what this space is all about.

So, what kind of things are we looking for? Something topical would be ideal (although not a prerequisite, any interesting points for discussion are welcome!) For example, maybe you have some thoughts to share on net neutrality and the impending EU vote? Maybe something exploring the cost/benefits of digital literacy training [PDF]? Or cyber security training for school children? Perhaps there’s an issue around data protection you would like to discuss? If you have a perspective on any of these issues, or if there are any related issues you are interested in exploring, please feel free to get in touch, we’d love to hear from you!

If you have any queries, ideas, suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact us via contact[at]theinformed.org.uk or via our Twitter account at @informedinfo. We look forward to hearing from you and, more importantly, sharing your perspectives on the big issues affecting the information society.

Public Functions, Private Companies, and Freedom of Information

Should private companies and charities delivering public services be subject to FOI? (Image c/o danbrady on Flickr.)

The following article was sent in by Erin Ferguson, a qualified librarian and doctoral researcher at the University of Strathclyde Law School. Erin tweets as @fergusonerin.

The recent privatisation of the Royal Mail and scandals involving companies like G4S and Serco have highlighted the ongoing concern over the transfer of public services to the private sector. Privatisation, in this instance defined to include both the sell-off of public assets and the contracting out of public services, has long been a controversial issue. Critics point out that privatisation often fails to meet its objectives, such as improving the quality or reducing the cost of public services. Additionally, there is concern that the delivery of public services is becoming less transparent as private companies are not responsible for responding to requests for information under the Freedom of Information or Freedom of Information (Scotland) Acts.  This post examines these concerns, as well as some of the recent proposals that have been put forward to extend FOI responsibilities.

Both the FOIA and FOISA confer on the public the general right to make requests for information from public bodies, which are listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. The list does not include private companies or charities that are now frequently responsible for the delivery of public serves, and both the Scottish and UK Information Commissioners have expressed concern over the potential for services to become less transparent and accountable. A recent survey by We Own It revealed that the public shares these views, with 88% of respondents indicating that they believe private companies delivering public services should be held to the same transparency requirements as the public sector. This concern is not only about the public’s ability to track the public pound. With 1 in 10 prisons no longer covered by the FOIA, there is concern that reduced transparency will make it difficult to scrutinise the performance of core functions of the state.

The continuing calls to protect transparency have spurred politicians into action. In 2012 Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan announced Labour’s pledge to extend the FOIA to private contractors if successful in the next election. Labour MP Graeme Morris introduced the Freedom of Information (Private Healthcare Companies) Bill in October 2013. The Public Services (Ownership and User Involvement) Bill, sponsored by Green MP Caroline Lucas, had its first reading in Parliament in January 2014. Among the latter private members’ bill’s aims was to make the contracting process more transparent and to extend FOI responsibilities to private contractors. Earlier this month the House of Commons Committee on Public Accounts published a report, in which it was acknowledged that greater transparency in contracting is needed and recommended that extension of the FOI regime be considered.

Last week, Justice Minister Simon Hughes confirmed plans for upcoming consultations on the FOIA. He announced the intended publication of a revised Code of Practice aimed at introducing FOI requirements into the contracts of private companies performing public functions. However, the coalition government has stopped short of actually extended the FOIA to private companies, a move that has been criticised by the Campaign for Freedom of Information. They argue that contractual disclosure provisions defeat the purpose of the FOIA, which was to provide a statutory right of access to information. Indeed, the plans seem reminiscent of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which was introduced by the Conservative government in 1994 as an alternative to FOI and was subsequently criticised for lacking ‘teeth.’ Whilst the details of the revised Code are still unclear, it is clear that the consultation process will need to consider how to ensure that this is not another missed opportunity to preserve transparency.

Access To Research – A Public Library Initiative

Theo Andrew works as a Scholarly Communications Officer in the Information Services group at the University of Edinburgh. Professional interests include: enhancing scholarly communication using new technologies; promoting an open agenda within academia; research analytics and altmetrics; and research information/data management.

Introduction

Data set containing over 1.6m temperature readings from stations across the globe.
(Image c/o Jer Thorp on Flickr.)

In January 2014 the Access to Research initiative was launched. This initiative was sparked by and is a response to a key recommendation in the Finch Report – “Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications” (Page 7; recommendation v). The two year pilot co-ordinated by the Publishers Licensing Society aims to give free at the point of use, walk-in access to academic literature in public libraries across the UK. The launch quickly generated a fair amount of publicity, albeit with equal measures of scorn poured upon it.

This blog post is not going to spend a long time explaining what the initiative is and how it works – others do it better here – but rather I’d like to talk about some of the good points and some of the not so obvious bad points so you can make up your own mind on the matter.

Before we start, it should be pointed out that, despite arising from the Finch report which has rather a lot to say about open access, this initiative actually has nothing to do with open access as most people understand the term, and should not be confused with developments in this area.

Lets begin by looking at some of the good stuff that the initiative promises:

1. Costs

Firstly, the cost to participating libraries and the general public is zero. The initiative is intended to be free at point of use for the user, and free for libraries to sign up to participate with all the costs being borne by the publishers. While we are not aware of the actual costs they are presumably not trivial. Hazarding an educated guess I doubt you’ll see much change from £100k if you wanted to set up a two year pilot preceded by a 3 month technical trial.

2. Content

The 17 publishers that are included at the start of the pilot have contributed between 1.25 to 1.5 million articles from a portfolio of approximately 8000 journals. The figures remain a bit hazy as David Willetts in his launch presentation mentions one figure and the promotional text states another. However, knowing how these kind of statistics are pulled together I can appreciate the vagueness.  At a first glance this is a sizable corpus of material to access for free, although I will return to this point to put the figure in more context later on.

3. Building bridges

One of the less tangible benefits of this initiative is that it could help to break down barriers between research and the wider community. The portrayal of science in the popular media is personal bug bear of mine. For many people the only exposure they have to current research topics is when they are covered in the newspapers and television news. Unfortunately lazy journalism seems to propagate an ‘us v them’ mentality – one of the most commonly heard phrases in the news must be “Scientists state that X causes cancer*” which is rarely productive for all involved. If journalists or the public can engage better with the primary literature (i.e. find more interesting news articles to broadcast/ carry out follow up reading) then this can only help with perceptions and engagement with research. Even proponents of the Access to Research initiative admit that a key challenge is how to digest information obtained from scholarly journals. At least making the literature available for citizens to begin to make informed decisions is a good start.

*where X is an activity/thing regularly done/consumed by the public

4. Footfall

At a time when public libraries are struggling in the face of cuts to maintain services and prove their relevance librarians will seize upon any opportunity to offer more services for no initial outlay (other than staff training). Already there is anecdotal evidence* that offering new services such as Access to Research will entice new users who wouldn’t normally think of visiting. Although most people would agree that providing information online is much more desirable, an increased footfall at public libraries is a good thing.

* Sarah Faulder at 7min20 mentions  “ ….a glowing testimonial”

5. Usability

Although I’ve not yet actually used the pilot Access to Research service, from all accounts the search delivery service – Summon from ProQuest – is extremely easy to use and doesn’t require specialised training to use. Furthermore, it doesn’t require tricky authentication to access on site which is a major failing whenever I’ve tried to use some online electronic public library services in the past.

6. Leadership

Another less tangible benefit mentioned by David Willetts is ‘thought leadership’ and UK PLC to be seen to be doing the right thing.

 

Now lets move on to some of the criticisms raised against the initiative:

1. Terms & Conditions

Perhaps some of the most serious criticisms are the limitations imposed on accessing the content. It always pays to read the small print which reveals serious restrictions on use – here are some of the worst:

  • I will only use the publications accessed through this search for my own personal, e.g. non-commercial research and private study
  • I will not download onto disc, CD or USB memory sticks or other portable devices or otherwise save, any publications accessed through this search;
  • I will not allow the making of any derivative works from any of the publications accessed through this search;
  • I will not copy otherwise retain, store or divert any of the publications accessed through this search onto my own personal systems;

 

Some of these points are extremely patronising – the derivative works one for example. We have all heard the famous quote that science is based upon standing on the shoulders of giants. To not be able to make derivative works goes against one of the underlying principles of scholarship. What this point makes clear is that users are meant to be consumers not creators of knowledge.

Other more knowledgeable folk like Cameron Neylon make a more eloquent assessment of the problems these terms and conditions create. All I want to add to this discussion is that in this day and age there is no reason to force users to adopt restrictions on use that are only appropriate for print media, unless you wish to severely handicap the usefulness and therefore the uptake of the service.

2. Postcode lottery

Closely related to the point above, but sufficiently serious to warrant its own point is the postcode lottery of whether you can actually use the walk in service. With 10 local authorities participating in the technical pilot and 11 new authorities joining, that means there are 400 libraries at the start of the initiative. There are around 4,265 public libraries which means the coverage is less than 10%. You could say that some access to public is better than no access at all, however the fact remains that currently the majority of UK citizens are excluded from the service. In mitigation, this is the start of a 2 year pilot and the initiative hopes to sign up a lot more local authorities as the pilot progresses. I would fully expect coverage to increase over time as more libraries opt in – although it’s hard to estimate quite what the final coverage will be.

3. Content put in context

1.25 – 1.5 million articles sound like a lot of content to read. However, if you consider that there are around 46.1 million records in Web of Science; and it is estimated that in 2006 the total number of articles published was approximately 1.35 million, the range of articles you can access through the initiative is a drop in the ocean. So if you are lucky to live close to enough to walk in to a participating library you can only access the equivalent of the research that was produced last year. As far as I know the selection process to be included in Access to Research is opaque – what papers are chosen and who decides?

4. Preserving the status quo

Perhaps one the most disappointing points for me is that this initiative is trying to preserve the status quo of academic publishing. It’s firmly rooted in the print distribution model and has built in sufficient obstacles for users to overcome that it is setting itself up for failure. The initiative goes against nearly all of Ranganathan’s five laws of library science:

i. Books are for use

…but the articles are digitally chained to prevent their removal.

ii. Every reader his [or her] book

…but the majority of readers can’t visit a participating library

iii. Every book its reader

…but the portfolio of journals is not comprehensive.

iv. Save the time of the reader

….restrictive terms and conditions prevent this.

v. The library is a growing organism.

….perhaps this is the saving grace as there is room for improvement.

 

5. Motivations

I’d like to take time to consider the motivations behind the initiative. Commercial organisations do not do anything for free unless there is a benefit somewhere further along the line. To put it in the crudest possible terms the benefits are the holy trinity of cash, turf or fame. The Access to Research initiative certainly ticks all three of these boxes.

The Publishers Licensing Society who have co-ordinated the Access to Research initiative, and Nature Publishing Group have been very forthright in admitting that the scheme is about ‘creating a new audience for information’ and opening ‘another channel to the market’ for their content. I can’t comment on how publishers actually intend to monetise the situation, but the standard Modus operandi is to develop a market then sell products directly to it.

It has been widely commented that there has been a great deal of hard lobbying by publishers to position paid-for Gold Open Access services as the main method of delivery of open access in the Finch Report. The focus on Gold OA has been widely criticised by a broad spectrum of the academic community and has resulted in a partial backtrack. In the face of renewed criticism academic publishers will be keen to please to government and show everyone they are the good guys:

“Government has been extremely pleased to see how publishers have tenaciously

pursued their welcome proposal for a Public Library Initiative (PLI) in the national and

public interest.”

Certainly the response (above) from the Rt Hon David Willetts to Prof Dame Janet Finch indicates they are heading along the right lines.

6. Access to public funded research

In the last few years there has been legislative movement in the States pushing towards taxpayer access to publicly funded research, and this viewpoint is gaining momentum in the UK. One of the main criticisms levelled at the current subscription model is that public funded money is being used to produce the research, but the fruits of the labour are not available to the people who funded it. One way to stop dead this argument is to say the public has access to all the research they need through an initiative like Access to Research.

Personally I would rather not rely on the generosity of third parties to deliver a sub-set of content (from an opaque selection of materials), that can have access removed at any time (2 year pilot), and is made difficult to access (via restrictive terms and conditions of use). I would rather see all content funded by taxpayers (either directly via research councils, or indirectly via universities or other sources) to be available freely via the internet (either in a repository or via an open access publisher), preferably with generous reuse rights granted up front.

The Too Long; Didn’t Read (tl;dr) summary

My own personal take on all of this is that the ‘Access to Research’ is a step in the right direction, but falls short in the implementation, and is driven by motivations that are not so altruistic as you might first think.

Do you Care for your Data? What care.data means for NHS patients in England

The new care.data database has prompted much debate about its impact on healthcare and patients.
(Image c/o Jamie on Flickr.)

The following post was written by Informed team member, Elly O’Brien.

NHS England’s new database, Care.data, will be populated with data collected by the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) from different care providers such as General Practitioners (GPs). The HSCIC already collects Hospital Episode Statistics, which details admissions, outpatient appointments and accident and emergency department attendances. The concept behind care.data is to create a single database with information spanning primary care (e.g. GP surgeries) and secondary care (e.g. hospital admissions), to enable this “big data” to be used to help understand and treat diseases, inform how local services are organised, identify people at risk of conditions and improve the “pathway” of treatment a patient follows.

We are frequently told that we are living in an age of “information overload”, where we are bombarded with information which can lead to an “information paradox” in which there are so many sources of information, that knowledge becomes hard to find and this superfluity of information can make it harder to reach a decision. Care.data is a perfect example of this in action, having created a flurry of media coverage and commentary from all sides.

The aim of this blog post is not to add to this excess of information or to try to sway anyone’s opinion, but to signpost sources of information from various organisations and viewpoints.

The HSCIC has background information on care.data, NHS England has a range of information specifically for health professionals. NHS Choices has information tailored for patients including an electronic copy of the leaflet that has been distributed to all households in England and a video.

So what are some of the issues that have been raised about care.data?

Anonymisation

NHS England has stated that the records will have identifiable information removed but the HSCIC has conceded that there is a small risk that records would be potentially identifiable as records will be pseudonymised rather than anonymised.

How the data will be used

The data will be used within the NHS nationally to inform research and improve practice, as well as by the NHS locally to understand local needs and for the NHS to commission services accordingly. It will also be made available (for a fee) to insurance firms and private organisations such as pharmaceutical companies. Some people are fundamentally opposed to this, but NHS England has sought to reassure patients that the data will not affect insurance premiums or be used for marketing purposes. NHS England has in place information governance measures designed to ensure that it complies with relevant legislation with regards to how care.data will be shared, stored and used. The same laws will apply to any non-NHS organisations using care.data, however, some critics have are concerned that any misuse of data would only be apparent after the fact and that law in itself is not necessarily a deterrent.

Having to opt-out

The new database is based on an opt-out system and patients who do not want their data included in the database are instructed to contact their GP in the leaflet being posted out. This has been criticised on principle by some, because people may not opt-out (perhaps due to laziness or lack of awareness) but in doing so are not necessarily positively consenting. Others have criticised that an opt-out form has not been provided, although some GP surgeries have created opt-out forms for patients on their websites (such as this Durham-based practice). To opt out you simply need to contact your GP surgery (not your actual GP), you can phone them or write to them (medConfidential has an opt-out form you can print out and send to your GP surgery).

The decision is yours to make, but a little reading can ensure that it is an informed, empowered decision rather than an unwitting opt-in.

Should access to the internet be a fundamental right…for everyone?

(Image c/o gianni on Flickr)

Overcoming the divide between the richest and the poorest in society has always been a significant challenge. The wealthiest in society have always been in a position to afford the services required to improve their quality of life: better healthcare, better education etc etc. In the twentieth century, particularly post-1945, there were renewed efforts to address this disparity through the introduction of the National Health Service, a functioning welfare system and free secondary education for all pupils.

Between 1910-1979, the divide between the wealthiest and the poorest in the UK dropped significantly, particularly after 1936. Since that period, however, the trend has been in the opposite direction as the wealthiest take a larger share of income than at any point since 1940. This widening of the divide between the richest and the poorest is, in part, a symptom of the watering down of the post-1945 social contract, characterised by a move away from the primacy of society towards the primacy of the individual. Technological advances have, however, provided an opportunity to close this gap once more.

However, as yet, this potential has yet to be realised, not least due to the expense of the technology and the skills required to exploit it. Indeed, whilst the impact of easier access by the public to relevant information has been felt to a degree, the continued existence of a digital divide hampers progress towards the more equitable society the technology can help to deliver.

At present, there are around 7 million people in the UK who have never accessed the internet (the number without access is obviously higher). The divide presents a number of difficulties for those without access to the internet. For example, it can hamper their child’s performance at school. It can put them at a disadvantage when it comes to their health and, as preventative care pushes up the agenda, the implications for the unconnected are stark. It can affect them economically, both in terms of the savings they would make and as a consequence of welfare reforms by the UK coalition in pushing social security online. Closing this divide can, therefore, improve life chances and help to shrink the gap between the richest and the poorest (it obviously won’t eliminate the gap on its own, that would require more wide-ranging action).

As government services have shifted online, the commercial potential for ever faster broadband has begun to be realised and the economic benefits of getting everyone online are talked up, there has been an awareness of the importance of addressing the divide between those connected to the internet and those that are not. However, one group is often excluded when it comes to identifying and supporting the so-called ‘information poor’ – prisoners.

Towards the end of last year, the Prison Reform Trust and Prisoners’ Education Trust released a report on computer and internet access in prisons. Through the Gateway: How Computers Can Transform Rehabilitation [PDF 1.46MB] explores the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in prisons and its potential impact on rehabilitation. Based on a survey of prisons sent to all prison governors and directors in England and Wales supported by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), a focus group of prisoners’ families, prison visits and expert roundtables, the report argues that drastic change is needed and access to ICT should be reconsidered.

Now, some might argue that if you are in prison you lose your liberty and therefore any right to access services such as the internet. However, whether we like it or not, many prisoners are only removed from society on a temporary basis, they will have to be reintegrated at some point. As such, we need to consider their return to society, their re-integration and, of course, provide the necessary support to help ensure that they do not re-offend. As the Prison Trust underline in their coverage of the report on their website, nearly half of all prisoners (47%) are reconvicted within a year of their release. Furthermore, in 2011-12, “just 27% of prisoners entered employment on release from prison”. The challenge for us as a society is to reduce the re-offending rate and ensure that prisoners are not pushed to the edges of society once they have finished serving their sentence.

Changes to the welfare system are in danger of making integration increasingly difficult for those released from prison. With the government pushing job seekers online to find work or suffer associated penalties, it is more crucial than ever that prisoners are not left behind and therefore placed at a serious disadvantage when it comes to finding work. The scale of the problem is reinforced in the report:

47% of prisoners say they have no qualifications. This compares to 15% of the working age general population in the UK.

21% of prisoners reported needing help with reading and writing or ability with numbers.

With such a lack of skills, it is clear that significant support is needed in getting prisoners online, preparing them for work outside of prison and ensuring they are not left behind or penalised by the government’s new social security regime. When almost a half of prisoners have no qualifications whatsoever and 1 in 5 need help with reading and writing, there are clearly significant barriers ahead in terms of their re-integration into society. As two prisoners noted in the report:

“Here’s why you need internet for resettlement: to keep up with changes outside – job criteria can change while you’re inside; checking on housing by particular postcodes – co-ordinated with your conditions of release.”

“It’s a bit of a risk – being linked into the internet – but the bigger risk is sending people out who are not able to cope and who cannot find gainful employment.”

The provision of internet access to prisoners can not only help develop their skills and ensure they are not left behind after they have served their sentence, it can also help to further their education. The growth of Massive Open Online Learning Courses (MOOCs) provides the opportunity for opening up education for all free of charge (provided they are online of course). Why should those with the skills to utilise the internet be prevented from furthering their education and helping to increase their chances of employment after their release? If we are to be serious about reducing re-offending rates, then shouldn’t we be looking at all the options and see an internet connection not as a luxury, but an important tool in helping to ensure prisoners can be re-integrated after serving their time?

Prison libraries could play a key role in ensuring access is provided and the technical skills of prisoners are developed. However, they are hampered by a number of restrictions placed upon them. Librarians working in prisons are severely restricted as a result of their equipment being connected to a tightly controlled prison network. Many sites are blocked, including blogs, social media and sometimes government websites. Although such restrictions are in place, prisoners are still not permitted to use the library computer because it is connected to the internet. Instead, prisoners are only provided access to standalone computers that are not connected to the internet and only permit the user to play games or write legal letters. That is, of course, if their prison is lucky to have any computers at all.

Whilst there may be legitimate concerns about the kind of material certain prisoners may attempt to access, such restrictions are not helpful in trying to ensure their reintegration into society when their sentence is served. The opportunities available online to learn new skills, not to mention the opportunity to learn basic ICT skills with the help of a trained prison librarian, can play a significant role in reducing the re-offending rate and provide former prisoners with the opportunity to make a more positive contribution to society. As Nick Hardwick, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, notes in the report’s foreword:

“We can’t go on with prisons in a pre-internet dark age: inefficient, wasteful and leaving prisoners woefully unprepared for the real world they will face on release. I have not met one prison professional who does not think drastic change is needed.”

If we want to reduce reoffending and ensure a more equitable society, then we need to address the digital divide that exists not only across our communities, but between our communities and those that have been excluded from them. It will prove controversial with many, but as the world rapidly changes around us, we need to ensure that those excluded can be reintegrated into a world that can be very different from the one they were excluded from.