scholarly journals Advancing cross-centre research networks: learning from experience, looking to the future

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerina Jones ◽  
Sharon Heys ◽  
Helen Daniels
Keyword(s):  
Information Sharing ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Virtual Teams ◽  
Administrative Data ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Research Networks ◽  
The Public ◽  
Information Governance ◽  
The Uk

IntroductionMany jurisdictions have programmes for the large-scale reuse of health and administrative data that would benefit from greater cross-centre working. The Advancing Cross centre Research Networks (ACoRN) project considered barriers and drivers for joint working and information sharing using the UK Farr Institute as a case study, and applicable widely. Objectives and ApproachACoRN collected information from researchers, analysts, academics and the public to gauge the acceptability of sharing data across institutions and jurisdictions. It considered international researcher experiences and evidence from a variety of cross centre projects to reveal barriers and potential solutions to joint working. It reviewed the legal and regulatory provisions that surround data sharing and cross-centre working, including issues of information governance to provide the context and backdrop. The emerging issues were grouped into five themes and used to propose a set of recommendations. ResultsThe five themes identified were: organisational structures and legal entities; people and culture; information governance; technology and infrastructure; and finance and strategic planning. Recommendations within these included: standardised terms and conditions including agreements and contractual templates; performance indicators for frequency of dataset sharing; communities of practice and virtual teams to develop cooperation; standardised policies and procedures to underpin data sharing; an accredited quality seal for organisations sharing data; a dashboard for data availability and sharing; and adequate resource to move towards greater uniformity and to drive data sharing initiatives. Conclusion/ImplicationsThe challenges posed by cross-centre information sharing are considerable but the public benefits associated with the greater use of health and administrative data are inestimable, particularly as novel and emerging data become increasingly available. The proposed recommendations will assist in achieving the benefits of cross-centre working.

scholarly journals Custodian Legal Culture - Enabling Multi-Stakeholder Research Collaborations Between Academia and Government in the UK

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stergios Aidinlis
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
Administrative Data ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Driving Forces ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Public Bodies

BackgroundEmpirical studies suggest that some public bodies in England are very reluctant to grant access to administrative data for various purposes. This poster presents the conclusions drawn in my so-far research on the driving forces of administrative discretion in respect of data sharing for social research in the public interest in England. ObjectivesThis poster aims to work towards answering a fundamental question for methodological models for engagement and research co-production between academia and government. This question is: what are the driving forces behind the exercise of data custodian discretion when it comes to deciding whether they will disclose it or not for research purposes? Methods (including data)First, this poster presents the findings of a qualitative case-study involving semi-structured interviews with individuals working for three different public bodies in England, two data providers and a body facilitating administrative data sharing for research. Second, it integrates a pilot survey which will aim to elicit the perspectives of ADR conference attendees, both admin data researchers and other stakeholders, on the crucial questions that revolve around the disclosure of data for research by different providers across the UK. FindingsI propose a distinction between structural (e.g. the law/ infrastructural decision-making models) and cultural (e.g. perceptions of data ownership / trust-distrust in data sharing collaborators) influences, claiming that the latter are more salient in steering custodian discretion to share administrative data for research in practice than the former. I identify five main candidate cultural drivers and elaborate on them. ConclusionsWithout a sound socio-legal understanding of the driving forces of discretionary legal powers to share data on behalf of the providers, building bridges between them and the academic community in the interest of promoting social research in the public interest will remain a resilient challenge.

scholarly journals From a culture of caution to a culture of confidence: facilitating the good governance of administrative data in the UK

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Stevens ◽  
Graeme Laurie
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Administrative Data ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Share Data ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Sector Data

ABSTRACT ObjectivesThis talk unpacks the culture of caution surrounding the use and sharing of administrative data in the UK and suggests the adoption of the authors’ novel decision-making tool and organisational strategy based on the public interest, to achieve good governance. Administrative data, which implicate all public sector data, are in constant demand –to be shared for ‘joined-up’ services, used as evidence in Government inquiries and for research purposes. These demands are often made on the basis that they serve ‘the public interest’ but public authorities are without the decision-making tools to make proportionate decisions outwith narrow and risk-averse interpretations of legal requirements. Public authorities are operating within a ‘culture of caution’, fuelled by misperceptions of what the law does or does not require for data to be used/shared ‘in the public interest’; uncertainties regarding incentives for data sharing; perceived controversies if something ‘goes wrong’; and imbalanced assessment of risks without robust assessment of potential public interests to be served or the potential ‘harm’ from not sharing data. ApproachThis discussion is substantiated by reference to major contributions to this field (e.g. Law Commission Report on data sharing in 2014; Thomas and Walport’s data sharing review in 2008 etc.) and to the authors’ engagement with the administrative data community as part of the legal work package to the Administrative Data Research Centre Scotland. ResultsThe research reveals that public authorities exhibit extreme hesitance to undertake data sharing initiatives for reasons including: misperceptions of the law (due to legal complexity, lack of legal precedent and authoritative guidance on data sharing) lack of resources and expertise to manage increasing demands to use/share data  individuals fear reprisal if something ‘goes wrong’ with data handling  senior-management fear public backlash for new uses of data and organisational reputational damage  no understanding of the incentives to share data if there is no ‘direct’ benefit to the public authority in question. ConclusionWe conclude by focussing on how to overcome the culture of caution, to one of confidence. We suggest the adoption of our decision-making matrix to help data custodians distinguish between real versus perceived barriers to data sharing (i.e. dispelling legal myths and identifying areas where changes can be made). We also introduce strategic solutions in our public interest mandate which entails overt commitment to use public sector data when it is in the public interest to do so.

scholarly journals DUPLICITY IN REGULATION AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FINANCIAL SECTOR IN KENYA

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dr.Agnes Ogada
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Developing Economies ◽  
Financial Sector ◽  
The United States ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Unique Contribution ◽  
Regulatory Structure ◽  
The Public ◽  
And Performance ◽  
The Uk

Purpose: The objective of the study was to investigate the duplicity in regulation and its effect on performance of the financial sector in Kenya. The specific objectives were; to review and identify regulation duplication/competition in existing regulatory framework for the financial sector in Kenya; to describe how regulatory effectiveness has been measured in empirical literature; to assess whether the current regulatory structure has affected the performance of the financial sector in Kenya and lastly to suggest potential ways of enhancing regulatory effectiveness in Kenya. Methodology: The paper used a desk study review methodology where relevant empirical literature was reviewed to identify main themes and to extract knowledge gaps. Findings: The study found out that financial sector in Kenya and other developing economies have reported losses on a large scale due to under regulation and regulator duplicity. Some of these have become insolvent, or have had to be taken over or rescued by their governments. A single market regulator clearly has its own advantages over multiple regulators. But it is more suitable for well-developed and mature markets which are smaller in size, like the UK. The study also found out that Kenya’s economy and political arena are not mature enough to handle a single financial market regulator. In this light it can be asserted that even mature economies such as the United States still have multiple regulators. Unique contribution to theory, practice and policy: Adherence to principles of open government, including transparency and participation in the regulatory process to ensure that regulation serves the public interest and is informed by the legitimate needs of those interested in and affected by regulation. Governments should ensure that regulations are comprehensible and clear and that parties can easily understand their rights and obligations. Organizations should create personalized technology systems that create a demand adaptation of ICT at every level of the organizational operations

scholarly journals The public accountability of social platforms: lessons from a study on bots and trolls in the Brexit campaign

2018 ◽  
Vol 376 (2128) ◽  
pp. 20180003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Bastos ◽  
Dan Mercea
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Information Warfare ◽  
The Public ◽  
Social Media Platforms ◽  
Application Programming ◽  
Access To Data ◽  
The Uk

In this article, we review our study of 13 493 bot-like Twitter accounts that tweeted during the UK European Union membership referendum debate and disappeared from the platform after the ballot. We discuss the methodological challenges and lessons learned from a study that emerged in a period of increasing weaponization of social media and mounting concerns about information warfare. We address the challenges and shortcomings involved in bot detection, the extent to which disinformation campaigns on social media are effective, valid metrics for user exposure, activation and engagement in the context of disinformation campaigns, unsupervised and supervised posting protocols, along with infrastructure and ethical issues associated with social sciences research based on large-scale social media data. We argue for improving researchers' access to data associated with contentious issues and suggest that social media platforms should offer public application programming interfaces to allow researchers access to content generated on their networks. We conclude with reflections on the relevance of this research agenda to public policy. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘The growing ubiquity of algorithms in society: implications, impacts and innovations'.

Value Creation through Heterogeneous Cultural Team-Based Environments

2014 ◽  
pp. 124-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilson Ozuem ◽  
Nicole Sarsby
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Teams ◽  
Value Creation ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Project Managers ◽  
Organisational Learning ◽  
Project Teams ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Cultural Heterogeneity ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Key Aspects

Previous research has documented cultural heterogeneity within project teams, but still attention mainly centres on project managers who transfer internationally to manage teams of a different culture from their own, or more recently from those who manage virtual teams. Existing literature does not discuss the readiness to manage culturally diverse teams as a result of large-scale EU migration and wider immigration in the UK projectised environments. The objectives of this contribution are: 1) to investigate the factors that influence effective value creation in heterogeneous cultural environments, in both inter- and intra-organisational learning and knowledge creation in the UK project team-based environments, and 2) to illuminate issues of value creation in heterogeneous cultural environments in both public and private team-based project environments. This chapter adds to extant studies of organisational diversity and innovation by elucidating the overwhelming key aspects of cultural heterogeneity and thus explains how challenging it is to affect change in the prevailing praxis, ideas, and values in team-based management.

scholarly journals #BritainBreathing: Codesigned citizen science to map seasonal allergy symptoms across the UK

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lamiece Hassan ◽  
Sheena Cruikshank ◽  
Markel Vigo ◽  
Caroline Jay ◽  
Indira McClean ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Environmental Changes ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
British Society ◽  
Joint Project ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Uk ◽  
High Level ◽  
Paper Prototyping

ABSTRACTObjectivesSeasonal allergies, hay fever and asthma affect approximately one in four people and the incidence is increasing. Whilst the causes are unknown, hypotheses propose associations with environmental changes, exposure to pollutants and decreased exposure to childhood infections. High resolution datasets on pollen count and pollution are available; however there is no equivalent for incidence of seasonal allergy symptoms. We planned a national citizen science project using smartphones to gather data from the general population on seasonal allergy symptoms, and where and when they occur. The resulting dataset will be linked with other publicly available data, enabling better understanding of allergy triggers. This is a joint project between the Royal Society of Biology, the British Society for Immunology, and The University of Manchester. ApproachIn spring 2015, two codesign workshops were held for members of the public with seasonal allergies and/or asthma (n=33). Guided by researchers, attendees used paper prototyping techniques to illustrate the functionalities of a mobile application. They also prioritised functions for inclusion within the app, discussed data sharing options and suggested material for the accompanying project website (www.britainbreathing.org). Following codesign workshops, designs and requirements were collated, refined and used to build the first version of the application in Android. ResultsWorkshop feedback indicated that potential users prioritised simple, personal tracking. They also valued the ability to access information about symptom frequencies among other users locally. Support for academic research was high, although most wanted some control over data sharing. People were comfortable with GPS data being collected, provided it did not impinge on privacy. We agreed to make data openly available via an interactive widget on the project website. The resulting first version of the application enables personal symptom tracking and will be released in March 2016 via the Google Play store (free of charge). A national media campaign will drive recruitment, alongside inclusion in the European City of Science 2016 programme in Manchester. Emerging data on the incidence of allergy symptoms by location will be presented. ConclusionCitizen science can be more than simply crowdsourcing data. We demonstrated that paper prototyping was a feasible and useful technique for codesigning an application with members of the public. Furthermore, workshop feedback indicated a high level of support for citizen science, provided users gained simple, personalised feedback. Further research is required to determine how codesign processes influence subsequent participant recruitment and engagement in citizen science projects.

scholarly journals Enforcing public data archiving policies in academic publishing: A study of ecology journals

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 205395171983625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Sholler ◽  
Karthik Ram ◽  
Carl Boettiger ◽  
Daniel S Katz
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Staff ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Data Archiving ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Data ◽  
Journal Editorial

To improve the quality and efficiency of research, groups within the scientific community seek to exploit the value of data sharing. Funders, institutions, and specialist organizations are developing and implementing strategies to encourage or mandate data sharing within and across disciplines, with varying degrees of success. Academic journals in ecology and evolution have adopted several types of public data archiving policies requiring authors to make data underlying scholarly manuscripts freely available. The effort to increase data sharing in the sciences is one part of a broader “data revolution” that has prompted discussion about a paradigm shift in scientific research. Yet anecdotes from the community and studies evaluating data availability suggest that these policies have not obtained the desired effects, both in terms of quantity and quality of available datasets. We conducted a qualitative, interview-based study with journal editorial staff and other stakeholders in the academic publishing process to examine how journals enforce data archiving policies. We specifically sought to establish who editors and other stakeholders perceive as responsible for ensuring data completeness and quality in the peer review process. Our analysis revealed little consensus with regard to how data archiving policies should be enforced and who should hold authors accountable for dataset submissions. Themes in interviewee responses included hopefulness that reviewers would take the initiative to review datasets and trust in authors to ensure the completeness and quality of their datasets. We highlight problematic aspects of these thematic responses and offer potential starting points for improvement of the public data archiving process.

scholarly journals Using Administrative Data to Explore the Effect of Survey Nonresponse in the UK Employment Retention and Advancement Demonstration

2019 ◽  
pp. 0193841X1880798
Author(s):  
Richard Dorsett ◽  
Richard Hendra ◽  
Philip K. Robins
Keyword(s):  
Administrative Data ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Survey Nonresponse ◽  
Full Sample ◽  
Employment Retention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Research Designs ◽  
The Uk

Background: Even a well-designed randomized control trial (RCT) study can produce ambiguous results. This article highlights a case in which full sample results from a large-scale RCT in the United Kingdom differ from results for a subsample of survey respondents. Objectives: Our objective is to ascertain the source of the discrepancy in inferences across data sources and, in doing so, to highlight important threats to the reliability of the causal conclusions derived from even the strongest research designs. Research design: The study analyzes administrative data to shed light on the source of the differences between the estimates. We explore the extent to which heterogeneous treatment impacts and survey nonresponse might explain these differences. We suggest checks which assess the external validity of survey measured impacts, which in turn provides an opportunity to test the effectiveness of different weighting schemes to remove bias. The subjects included 6,787 individuals who participated in a large-scale social policy experiment. Results: Our results were not definitive but suggest nonresponse bias is the main source of the inconsistent findings. Conclusions: The results caution against overconfidence in drawing conclusions from RCTs and highlight the need for great care to be taken in data collection and analysis. Particularly, given the modest size of impacts expected in most RCTs, small discrepancies in data sources can alter the results. Survey data remain important as a source of information on outcomes not recorded in administrative data. However, linking survey and administrative data is strongly recommended whenever possible.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document