The new police research contracts and the principles that guide them should be celebrated by academics, but without question they are a victory achieved by the media. Without the Fourth Estate, this promise to open up the police databases would never have occurred.
In November last year, I raised two concerns in the Herald column: the first was that I had been blacklisted by police from accessing their data and the second was a broader issue that police research contracts were curbing academic inquiry and free speech. The Herald's David Fisher gave the whole issue a good nudge on the same day.
In November last year, I raised two concerns in the Herald column: the first was that I had been blacklisted by police from accessing their data and the second was a broader issue that police research contracts were curbing academic inquiry and free speech. The Herald's David Fisher gave the whole issue a good nudge on the same day.
Morning Report really kicked the can along and suddenly it went everywhere. I had some concern that fighting back against the police may prove rather unwise if nobody else cared about the issues. Thankfully they did. Media and the bloggers went to work. The following day CNN picked up the story.
My redacted police file was a bit of a giggle but it did make things look sinister, which was perhaps the point. I stated that if the police removed the black ink than I would make it public. My fieldwork research gangs was no picnic but I had nothing to hide.
In a letter published the NZ Herald, ten sociologist from the University of Auckland called the police moves against me a nonsense. I only learned about this when I read about it in Gavin Ellis's new book, there were so many examples of support that I couldn't keep up.
A number of politicians also came to my defence and one, Peter Dunne, wrote a letter to police minister Michael Woodhouse calling on him to intervene. Woodhouse was unmoved, saying the issue was 'operation'. It wasn't, of course, but it was a deft sidestep. But I do wonder if he pushed things along backstage.
Within a couple of days the Commissioner of Police, Mike Bush, was on TV3's The Nation promising a swift rethink. It was 9am, and I opened a beer.
My redacted police file was a bit of a giggle but it did make things look sinister, which was perhaps the point. I stated that if the police removed the black ink than I would make it public. My fieldwork research gangs was no picnic but I had nothing to hide.
In a letter published the NZ Herald, ten sociologist from the University of Auckland called the police moves against me a nonsense. I only learned about this when I read about it in Gavin Ellis's new book, there were so many examples of support that I couldn't keep up.
A number of politicians also came to my defence and one, Peter Dunne, wrote a letter to police minister Michael Woodhouse calling on him to intervene. Woodhouse was unmoved, saying the issue was 'operation'. It wasn't, of course, but it was a deft sidestep. But I do wonder if he pushed things along backstage.
Within a couple of days the Commissioner of Police, Mike Bush, was on TV3's The Nation promising a swift rethink. It was 9am, and I opened a beer.
Just a week later TV One's Seven Sharp did this entertaining piece in which my nobbly knees where given more airtime than was seemly, and they timed it perfectly. Just an hour or so before the show went to air, the police had officially backed down on my blacklisting and had apologised to me. They also promised to review their research contracts. I can't exactly recall if I did or not, but I probably opened a beer then, too. Certainly I'd had a couple when I met Mike Bush at the end of year Gallery press party. We had a fairly cordial exchange of opinions.
There wasn't much to do by this stage, so I just waited to see how the wider issue of the research contracts would play out, saying I had trust in the police. If I'm honest, I wasn't sure I had that much trust but it sounded like a good line when talking to Lisa Owen.
There wasn't much to do by this stage, so I just waited to see how the wider issue of the research contracts would play out, saying I had trust in the police. If I'm honest, I wasn't sure I had that much trust but it sounded like a good line when talking to Lisa Owen.
Around this time, the vice chancellors of all New Zealand's universities wrote to the police and said they were happy to assist in the redrafting of contracts. And as luck would have it there was a change at the head of the police research team, which meant an 'outsider' would oversees the changes. It just so happened, I knew him. I had undertaken research for him when he was with the Health Promotion Agency - coincidentally, the very work that I was initially banned from undertaking by police. A small world? Sometimes it feels like a cupboard.
Ten months or so later and the fruits of the police efforts have come to pass. And guess what? They look good.
RNZ and the Herald covered things this morning.
But in a nutshell, where do things sit? On paper the improvements to the contract are reflected in guiding principles that sound terrific. More data is to be released and in a more timely manner. The general thrust can be seen to have moved from a closed approach with exceptions, to an open approach with exceptions.
Privately, I had been told by a number of people in the police that an evidence led approach is a real objective and allowing academics greater access to data is a part of this.
So it's time for another beer, right? Maybe. These are positive developments without question and those involved ought be congratulated. My only caution is whether or not the people who control the data within the police are on board. Can the culture within that research unit change so dramatically, even with a new person at the helm? Let's hope so.
There is another small kicker here, too. As I was typing this Twitter has asked, why isn't all of the data covered by the Official Information Act? It's a great point. And if things don't quite play out as promised, it will be one that will undoubtedly be tested in the courts at some stage.
But let's hope it doesn't come to that. Let's hope the new policies work as well as they read. Let's hope that in a year or so we are citing the cops as the exemplar of open government at the forefront of academic inquiry. Let's hope.
Ten months or so later and the fruits of the police efforts have come to pass. And guess what? They look good.
RNZ and the Herald covered things this morning.
But in a nutshell, where do things sit? On paper the improvements to the contract are reflected in guiding principles that sound terrific. More data is to be released and in a more timely manner. The general thrust can be seen to have moved from a closed approach with exceptions, to an open approach with exceptions.
Privately, I had been told by a number of people in the police that an evidence led approach is a real objective and allowing academics greater access to data is a part of this.
So it's time for another beer, right? Maybe. These are positive developments without question and those involved ought be congratulated. My only caution is whether or not the people who control the data within the police are on board. Can the culture within that research unit change so dramatically, even with a new person at the helm? Let's hope so.
There is another small kicker here, too. As I was typing this Twitter has asked, why isn't all of the data covered by the Official Information Act? It's a great point. And if things don't quite play out as promised, it will be one that will undoubtedly be tested in the courts at some stage.
But let's hope it doesn't come to that. Let's hope the new policies work as well as they read. Let's hope that in a year or so we are citing the cops as the exemplar of open government at the forefront of academic inquiry. Let's hope.
RSS Feed