Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:18:19.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Access to Information, Higher Education, and Reputational Risk: Insights from a Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 December 2019

Patrick Lamoureux Open the ORCID record for Patrick Lamoureux [Opens in a new window]
Patrick Lamoureux*
Affiliation:
Department of Criminology University of [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Access to information and freedom of information (ATI/FOI) requests are an increasingly utilized means of generating data in the social sciences. An impressive multi-disciplinary and international literature has emerged which mobilizes ATI/FOI requests in research on policing, national security, and imprisonment. Absent from this growing literature is work which deploys ATI/FOI requests in research on higher education institutions (HEIs). In this article I examine the use of ATI/FOI requests as a methodological tool for producing data on HEIs. I highlight the data-generating opportunities that this tool offers higher education researchers and provide a first-hand account of how ATI/FOI requests can be mobilized in higher education research. I argue that despite the value of ATI/FOI requests for producing data on academic institutions, the information management practices of HEIs limit the effectiveness of ATI/FOI in ways that I detail drawing on my experience using information requests to scrutinize the quality assurance of undergraduate degree programs in Ontario. I suggest that in an age of rankings and league tables HEIs are likely to prioritize the protection of their reputation over the right of access. In conclusion I consider the implications of the article’s findings for higher education researchers and ATI/FOI users.

Résumé

Les demandes d’accès à l’information et concernant la liberté d’information (AI/LI) constituent un moyen de plus en plus utilisé afin de générer des données en sciences sociales. Une impressionnante littérature multidisciplinaire et internationale mobilisant les demandes d’AI/LI dans la recherche sur le maintien de l’ordre, la sécurité nationale et l’emprisonnement a émergé dans les récentes années. Cette littérature en croissance est toutefois lacunaire sur le plan des travaux qui utilisent les demandes d’AI/LI dans la recherche sur les établissements d’enseignement supérieur (EES). Dans cet article, j’examine l’utilisation des demandes d’AI/LI comme outil méthodologique permettant de produire des données sur les EES. Je souligne les possibilités de production de données qu’offre cet outil aux chercheurs de l’enseignement supérieur, et je donne un compte rendu personnel de la manière dont les demandes d’AI/LI peuvent être mobilisées dans la recherche au sein des EES. Je soutiens que, malgré la valeur des demandes AI/LI dans la production de données sur les établissements universitaires, les pratiques de gestion de l’information des EES limitent l’efficacité des AI/LI de certaines manières. J’utilise mon expérience en matière de demandes de renseignements pour examiner l’assurance qualité des programmes universitaires de premier cycle en Ontario. Je suggère qu’à l’ère des palmarès et des tableaux de classement, les EES sont susceptibles de donner la priorité à la protection de leur réputation plutôt qu’au droit d’accès. En conclusion, j’examine les implications des résultats de l’article pour les chercheurs de l’enseignement supérieur et les utilisateurs de l’AI/LI.

Keywords

access to informationfreedom of informationhigher educationresearch methodsreputational riskaccès à l’informationliberté de l’informationenseignement supérieurméthodes de rechercherisque pour la réputation
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , December 2019 , pp. 479 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Brockman, J. 2018. The research challenges of exposing physicians’ sexual misconduct in Canada. Critical Criminology 26: 527–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, K. 2009. COUNTERBLAST: Freedom of information as a research tool: Realizing its potential. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 48 (1): 88–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownlee, J. 2015. Contract faculty in Canada: Using access to information requests to uncover hidden academics in Canadian universities. Higher Education 70:787–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownlee, J., and Walby, K.. 2015. Access to Information and Social Justice: Critical research strategies for journalists, scholars, and activists. Winnipeg, MB: ARP Books.Google Scholar
Chapman, D. W. and Lindner, S.. 2016. Degrees of Integrity: The threat of corruption in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 41 (2): 27–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dill, D., and Soo, M.. 2005. Academic Quality, League Tables, and Public Policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education 49:495–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espeland, W., and Sauder, M.. 2007. Rankings and Reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology 113 (1): 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrichs, D. 2010. Trusted Criminals: White collar crime in contemporary society, 3rd ed. Scarborough: Thomson/Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Greenberg, P. 2016. Strengthening sociological research through public records requests. Social Currents 3 (2): 110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannah-Moffat, K. 2011. Criminological Cliques: Narrowing dialogues, institutional protectionism, and the next generation. In What is criminology?, ed. Bosworth, M. and Hoyle, C.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hazelkorn, E. 2015. Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The battle for world-class excellence, 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedgecoe, A. 2016. Reputational risk, academic freedom and research ethics review. Sociology 50 (3): 486–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hewitt, S. 2012. ‘“He Who Controls the Present, Controls the Past”: The Canadian security state’s imperfect censorship under the Access to Information Act. In Brokering access , ed. Larsen, M. and Walby, K.. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Keen, M. F. 1992. The Freedom of Information Act and Sociological Research. The American Sociologist 23 (2): 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinsman, G., and Gentile, P.. 2010. The Canadian War on Queers: National security as sexual regulation. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Larsen, M., and Walby, K.. 2012. Brokering Access: Power, politics, and freedom of information process in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Lee, R. M. 2001. Research Uses of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. Field Methods 13 (4): 370–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luscombe, A., and Walby, K.. 2015. High Policing and Access to Information. Police Practice and Research 16 (6): 485–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luscombe, A., and Walby, K.. 2017. Theorizing Freedom of Information: The live archive, obfuscation, and actor-network theory. Government Information Quarterly 34: 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marginson, S., and van der Wende, M.. 2007. To Rank or To Be Ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education 11 (3/4): 306–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marginson, S. 2014. University Rankings and Social Science. European Journal of Education 49 (1): 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, G. T. 1984. Notes on the Discovery, Collection, and Assessment of Hidden and Dirty Data. In Studies in the sociology of social problems, ed. Schneider, J. and Kitsuse, J.. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Monaghan, J. 2015. Four Barriers to Access to Information: Perspectives of a Frequent User. In Access to information and social justice , ed. Brownlee, J. and Walby, K.. Winnipeg, MB: ARP Books.Google Scholar
Mopas, M. S., and Turnbull, S.. 2011. Negotiating a Way In: A special collection of essays on accessing information and socio-legal research. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 26 (3): 585–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance. 2016. Quality assurance framework. October. <http://oucqa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Quality-Assurance-Framework-and-Guide-Updated-October-2016-Compressed-Version.pdf>>Google Scholar
Palys, T., and Atchison, C.. 2008. Ethics in Social Research. In Research Decisions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives, 4th ed. Toronto: Nelson.Google Scholar
Piché, J., and Walby, K.. 2010. Problematizing Carceral Tours. British Journal of Criminology 50 (3): 570–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piché, J. 2011. “Going public”: Accessing data, contesting information blockades. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 26 (3): 635–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, M., Scheytt, T., Soin, K., and Sahlin, K.. 2009. Reputational Risk as a Logic of Organizing in Late Modernity. Organization Studies 30 (2–3): 301–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappert, B. 2012. States of Ignorance: The unmaking and remaking of death tolls. Economy and Society 41 (1): 42–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigakos, G. S., and Worth, S. R.. 2011. Access to Information (ATI) as a Double-Edged Sword for Critical Policing Research. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 26 (3): 645–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, A. 2001. Structural Pluralism and the Right to Information. University of Toronto Law Journal, 51 (3): 243–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, A. 2006. Blacked Out: Government secrecy in the information age . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, A. 2005. Spin Control and Freedom of Information: Lessons for the United Kingdom from Canada. Public Administration 83 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spivakovsky, C. 2011. The need for flexible and adaptive research in an environment of diverse barriers to accessing data. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 26 (3): 607–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tombs, S., and Whyte, D.. 2002. Unmasking the Crimes of the Powerful. Critical Criminology 11 (3): 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walby, K., and Larsen, M.. 2011. Getting at the Live Archive: On access to information research in Canada. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 26 (3): 623–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walby, K., and Larsen, M. 2012. Access to Information and Freedom of Information Requests: Neglected means of data production in the social sciences. Qualitative Inquiry 18 (1): 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, T. M. 2015. Research Access Barriers as Reputational Risk Management: A case study of censorship in corrections. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 57 (3): 330–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, L., Moore, D., and Kazmiersky, V.. 2015. Policing Carceral Boundaries: Access to information and research with prisoners. Social Justice 42 (2): 113–131.Google Scholar
Yeager, M. G. 2008. Getting the Usual Treatment: Research censorship and the dangerous offender. Contemporary Justice Review 11 (4): 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31Google Scholar
Order PO-3594, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2016.Google Scholar
Order PO-3943, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2019.Google Scholar
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31Google Scholar
Order PO-3594, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2016.Google Scholar
Order PO-3943, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2019.Google Scholar