One of which is my investigation, The Price of a University Drop-out, which uses HEFCE data and the HESES (Higher Education Students Early Statistics Survey) to look into the number of non-completing students and how much public funding a university can lose as a result.

Here are the posts so far:

• The price of a University drop-out 1: Higher Education funding in context.
• The price of a University drop-out 2: How do you work out the numbers?
• The price of a University drop-out 3: Exactly how much is each student worth?
• The price of a University drop-out 4: Time for some numbers.

And there is more to come, with future posts aiming to look at how future higher education changes will effect the figures.

That’s all. Thanks gaiz.

I’m working a lot at the moment on the Help Me Investigate Education site, and hoped to uncover some nice information.

Instead, when going through the July released DLHE statistics (destination of leavers from higher education) from HESA, I found that there were a number of occasions where numbers were confused with percentages.

BUT THAT’S A GRIPE. Not a genuine issue. What I’m focusing on at the moment is looking at unemployment rates for 09/10 by region of and institution of higher education; find out if London study produces a greater/lesser rate of employment, for example.

This information was available through the DLHE statistics but was not available in data-form (for example, only wider-english results are accessible), and I wanted to look into why, as well as which section they derived the data from, since in my calculations, and from the data on offer, I can’t see how it was possibly calculated.

I think it’s an issue of clarity; does “employed by region of HEI 2009/10″ include students working abroad and studying whilst working? Why do data-sets with unemployment listed only have “assumed” categories and not derived figures?

Why are 1st degree students the only one’s considered? Why is the data so confusing, spread apart and hard to navigate?

I’m looking into it, and if anyone wants to help, let me know, or take a look at the Help Me Investigate Education site.

An introduction; my phone cannot send texts, hasn’t for about a week. It’s an HTC Desire HD on orange Dolphin 30; unlimited texts, 500 minutes, something data. Possibly 500mb.

Besides the point, for now. I got through to the help centre on a home phone to find out my account number and get an initial solution, which failed.

Since then, my phone will not connect to 150 and any other phone I use, once I input my mobile number, will disconnect me, both with the following message;

“Thank you for calling Orange. Sorry, but we are unable to continue processing your call. Please hang up and try again”.

I’ve heard this about 15 times today, on both phones, and I think the real issues are as follows;

• It appears online on forums with no explanation, so it’s obviously a common occurence with no answer and, sadly, no-one knows exactly what it means.
• It only appears when Orange know the mobile number in question; I got through first time initially, but since then nothing. Do I get pushed to the back of the queue with this mobile number since I’ve already got through to help today?
• Does Orange know there’s shennanigans going on with my phone because it’s ignoring this specific number? Is this why I’m getting this unique message repeatedly?

I though it’d be worth e-mailing and finding out, because this specific a message means something, and surely it’s worth finding out, since forums online aren’t answering the question.

God damn phone rage. Gets a pretty good amount done, don’t you think?

If anyone has any specific experiences or any ideas, or situations where they;ve heard this message let me know. >:(.

The Freedom of Information Act is now edging on 7 years old, and despite some difficulties in using it effectively, it has proved an important and useful tool for journalists and members of the public.

In a similar vein, ‘civil society organisations’ have now launched AsktheEU.org, with which any EU citizen can file a request to obtain information held by public bodies within the EU.

“The right applies to the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and most other EU offices, bodies and agencies. For some EU bodies such as the European Central Bank, however, the right only applies to the administrative functions of those bodies.”

Essentially, there is a wide range of bodies to seek information from and unlike the FOI Act, your request will be sent to the appropriate body by AsktheEU and a response is required within 15 working days.

There are search tools within the site to find other requests that may be similar to yours and all requests are made public on the site; however, no private requests can be made on this site, similar to using Whatdotheyknow.

As the Guardian states, “People – even downloaders – only have a finite amount of money. In times gone by, sure, they would have been buying vinyl albums. But if you stopped them downloading, would they troop out to the shops and buy those songs?”

But, I think we are beyond the point of these kinds of arguements now.

I think that film companies especially are confusing the issue; their films will end up on file-sharing websites such as sidereel and tv shack, so why aren’t they, rather than fighting a losing battle, pushing people to watch their films on these sites and shifting public opinion?

I started realising this since writing my foreign film review blog; one minute the industry is dead, the next it’s re-born, and frankly, it’s because smaller films are doing better than ever because they can be watched for free online.

Take it from me; films, especially indie/foreign films, will only ever be available online or on DVD. and no-one, unless dedicated, will buy a DVD just on a description and a few reviews, and will look to watch it online.

And, chances are, it’ll be a massive hassle for that person. If they like the film, in amongst the ’72 minutes watched today, take a break’ messages on video-hosting sites like megavideo or videobb, the chances are they will a) recommend it to someone else or b), especially for foreign films, they will buy the film so they can watch it again.

Megavideo and Videobb know this; they can host the videos whilst simultaneously avoid blame for doing so, and I am not blaming nor accusing.

It is, whetherwe admits it or not, a win-win situation. Not the biggest win that could be hoped for, but a win none-the-less.

So, why are foreign and indie film advertisers (and the same for music) not marketing this avenue? It’s easy enough to push public opinion (and traffic) towards certain websites by placing a few comments underneath trailers and simply starting off a word-of-mouth chain.

If someone is going to steal your ingredients and make a cake out of them, you may as well share the cake out, let the public get a taste for it and want to but the real thing from you…

Metaphors were never my strong point.

The government have made commitments to a whole new range of data transparency initiatives, which look set to make the UK government (and data.gov) a world leader in open data.

The Guardian reported that in an open-letter to the cabinet, David Cameron announced a range of initiatives that will “represent the most ambitious open data agenda of any government in the world, and demonstrate our determination to make the public sector more transparent and accountable”, including a release of the Treasury’s Coins Database and details on Government spending over £25,000.

The twenty-strong list of commitments are best explained in The Guardian Datablog’s breakdown but were announced on the Number 10 website in an article with some comment from Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office Minister.

Her words seemed to promote the data release as a benefit for everyday life;

“The new commitments represent a quantum leap in government transparency and will radically help to drive better public services. Having this data available will help people find the right doctor for their needs or the best teacher for their child and will help frontline professionals compare their performance and effectiveness and improve it.” 

These proposals follow on from the announcements in May of last year that data on government spending and crime data would be made more accessible, leading to the launch of the National Crime Maps in February.

There are still issues with how the data will be handled and received by the public, and the public may also be sceptical of a massive data release set to aid the progress of investigative journalism, especially in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal and the closure of the News of the World.

The National Crime Maps were slated by critics and the data used was said to be near impossible to extract and use in a constructive way. It will be key to see how the government plan to release the new datasets and whether they will be in a usable, translatable and extractable format.

The criticisms of the Coins data set are a perfect example of data being collated, ‘distributed’ and still being difficult to extract journalistic value from.

Let’s just say it’s hard to remain positive.

In other words, this 2005 regulation “encourages the re-use of public information for reasons other than its original purpose”.

Although often more useful for companies and industry, who are free to use requested public sector information for commercial purposes, it is also a time-saving endeavour for journalists and an easy-access route for the public.

The regulation applies to all information requested for by the use of (and defined by) the Freedom of Information Act, but educational establishments are exempt and a similar set of rules are in place.

These regulations do not force public bodies to keep information publically available unless otherwise required. They do, however, force public bodies to (courtesy of the very helpful Portsmouth Council);

1. publish a list of the main documents which can be re-used
2. publish any standard conditions associated with re-use
3. publish any standard charges associated with re-use
4. operate a request procedure
5. operate a complaints/appeals procedure.

A response is required within 20 days, but since you’ll be forced to specify exactly what documents are being requested and the reasons as to why you are asking for the information, responses should be more prompt than with FOI procedure.

All that is required from you is a written request (e-mail is acceptable), with your name and  address, the information being requested and the reasons as to why you’re filing the request.

So look out for listings of documents on your Local Council’s website before you throw out a FOI request, and if you have any worries about pricing or the conditions of use of certain information, this is a good place to look.

One of the most heated debates of recent years has been climate change, and on Friday, the Guardian reported that the University of East Anglia has had to relinquish masses of previously secret data on climate change because of Freedom of Information law.

It is said to be a victory for critics of the climatic research unit at the University, after two years of strong-holding vast numbers of global temperature records from fellow researchers and climate change sceptics.

However, the decision by the government’s information commissioner (Christopher Graham) is the first of its kind, and Johnathan Jones, who requested the data and is not a climate sceptic, puts it best;

“The most significant features of this decision are the precedents that have been set”

This decision should enable the release of more scientific research to the public as part and parcel of Freedom of Information law.

The law states that public bodies (including universities) have to release data unless there are good reasons not to, and in this case, the UEA said that legal exemptions applied; some of the data belonged to foreign meteorological offices and it was said that there would be value in selling the data to other researchers.

However, the decision by the commissioner “said suggestions that international relations could be upset by disclosure were “highly speculative”, and “it is not clear how UEA might have planned to commercially exploit the information requested.”

It is the first ruling made on climate data since ‘climategate’, and will obviously have huge implications in both the climate debate and in the request for information, as this case should outline procedure for universities and other public-servicing research centres when it comes to offering information the public.

My recent (completed, yayay) dissertation has got me thinking about crowd-sourcing and the recent Ryan Giggs… scandal? (he who shall not be named can have the title back)

“Journalism, according to Ryfe and Mensing (2010), has been an ever-present commodity in everyday life because it represents the relationship between democratic community and modernity, and when the community are not content they feel as though it is their right and responsibility to either complain or do the work better themselves.”

I used this Ryfe and Mensing quote from their extract in Public Journalism 2.0- The Promise and Reality of a Citizen-engaged Press by Jack Rosenberry to discuss the idea of community activism, and I think it raises a key issue in this debate over privacy and “Naming Private Ryan“.

When the community are not content, they will do the work themselves.

This concept is normally applied to crowdsourced investigative journalism, like in the case of the ever reliable Helpmeinvestigate. When the mainstream news media have little time or money to throw at an issue, the crowd will kick up a fuss.

Similarly, if an issue is not of  ‘importance’ to mainstream media, like pot-holes in roads or local government accounts, then the community who are concerned will send out Freedom of Information Requests and collect a community who will find answers.

Now, the system in which the mainstream media work, it could be argued, is the cause for their apparent lack of interest in these kind of issues, and is the cause of the lack of funding and time.

When this system falters, the citizens kick, scratch and bite.

Now, in the case of #Giggsgate, the failing was not one of the mainstream media directly, but of the privacy laws in which they work.

Super-injunctions. Some say they are worthless since The Sunday Herald pushed out in front and practically unmasked Giggs already (it seems now, a brave but worthwhile PR stunt until some vindication arrives).

The Trafigura case from a few years back brought the super-injunction to the knowledge of those media practitioners who hadn’t come across it already.

But, really, all you need to know is that you can’t talk about or publish something. And in cases, this super-injunction cannot be mentioned either.

I would show you Lauren Laverne explaining it on 10 o’clock Live, but apparently, Channel 4 like removing any knowledge that such an occurence ever took place, so instead, I’ll leave you with HIGNFY.

But, a key note is Ian Hilop saying:

“Judges are making up privacy law as they see fit… as they inevitably balance freedom of the individual privacy against the presses freedom of expression…“

Now, the systems of the mainstream media fail in this regard because they can’t publish. There is information of (relative) public interest that has been blocked because somebody wanted privacy.

And even though it is a failure out of their hands (and admittedly, in the hands of judges who, as a failing of the law, do practically have to make up privacy law as they go along) the public still feel that it is a failure, and set about distributing the information themselves.

Amongst all the #superinjunction and Wikipedia alteration (and one particularly funny google answer in which “flying piggs” was the response), the discussion between friends on Twitter was key. It’s always been one of the main reason people read the “weird and wonderful” section of the BBC website and actually read content in lads mags;

We want to be the first pers0n to know about something and and the first person to tell it to our friends. It’s human nature.

If Giggs hadn’t super-injunctioned, not many people would have cared for longer than a few days. People would have thought less of him as a person, but if you make your bed after having washed the sheets after having shagged a big brother lady, you have to lie in it at some point, even if it’s only for a night or two.

The important point is that the public smelt a story being hidden, and they, seeing that the mainstream media were faltering, decided to take things into their own hands.

Around 75,000 people uttered the name before the right semi-honourable MP  John Hemming covered for them using parliamentary privilege, an inappropriate out of date way to flout an inappropriate, out of date rule.

The argument isn’t about this story; if anything, it gives the argument more weight: if people will stick their necks out to name a cheating footballer, what will they do when it’s their money, their society or their own freedom of expression that is at stake if the rules aren’t changed?

And how can you prosecute, even with the appropriate user or profile information, when you’re accusing people of flouting an injunction that they supposedly aren’t supposed to know even exists? (and even if they do, they’re clearly not intimidated because the serverity law is made as private as the issue)

It’s a messy set of laws for a messy society and let’s hope that for once, the MP’s step up and sort out a law that can function alongside rather than in response to society.

Freedom of Information has enabled access to information.

But sometimes, there are still issues with making this information accessible to all in usable formats, whilst still avoiding charging or licensing issues.

It’s nice to see a government-encouraged website trying to change things; the Public Sector Information Unlocking Service, although the regulator for the re-use of public sector information, is trying to encourage the copying and re-mixing of data by allowing users to essentially make mini-petitions for information.

They ask you for the problem, your ideal solution and what you will do with the information. Requests are stored by data (under each month) and adding your name and e-mail address allows you to ‘support’ a request, giving it more prominence and a greater chance of getting noticed.

It’s a good idea with potential, but at the moment, the information asked for is a bit vague and confusing (a lot of people get confused when asked for ‘the problem’, and whether or not this with regards to why the information couldn’t be easily accessed or why they are asking for the information), and it only allows access to information that is accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

Alongside this, it seems that, for a long time, none of the requests have gained any supporters, and despite requests dating back to 2008 it seems as though the whole thing hasn’t really caught any momentum.

It is something to keep an eye on forever, and something that could make the utilisation of Freedom of Information and access to open data a whole lot easier.