Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the challenges that open government data initiatives present to records management within the public sector in England and to identify areas of practice and policy that will need to be developed to ensure compliance with such environments.

A review of current literature underpins the analysis of data collected through an anonymised case study of a National Health Service (NHS) hospital trust. Data were collected through a qualitative research in the form of semi-structured interviews with information professionals at the case study site. Additionally, a short descriptive online survey was distributed to the members of a specialist interest group, the Health Archives and Records Group.

Open government data presents a series of interconnected practical challenges to records management at a local level as the open government data environment continues to develop. These practical challenges overshadow a number of technical challenges, such as ensuring the accuracy and integrity of proactively published data.

The main limitation of this research is the small number of interviews conducted during data collection, which limits its capacity to present more generalised findings.

The case study of an individual NHS hospital trust allows for a specific insight into the challenges that open government data presents to records management within a single operational unit.

Open government data and access to public sector information is commonplace, yet little attention has focussed on the essential roles and responsibilities in practice of the information and records management professionals, who enable public authorities to deliver open data to citizens. This paper aims to consider the perspectives of open government and information practitioners in England on the procedural and policy implications of open data across local public authorities.

Using four case studies from different parts of the public sector in England (local government, higher education, National Health Service and hospital trust), the research involved master’s level students in the data collection and analysis, alongside academics, thus enhancing the learning experience of students.

There was little consistency in the location of responsibility for open government data policy, the range of job roles involved or the organisational structures, policy and guidance in place to deliver this function. While this may reflect the organisational differences and professional concerns, it makes it difficult to share best practice. Central government policy encourages public bodies to make their data available for re-use. However, local practice is very variable and perhaps understandably responds more to local organisational strategic and resource priorities. The research found a lack of common metadata standards for open data, different choices about which data to open, problems of data redundancy, inconsistency and data integrity and a wide variety of views on the corporate and public benefits of open data.

The research is limited to England and to non-national public bodies and only draws data from a small number of case studies.

The research contributes to the debate about emerging issues around the complexities of open government data and its public benefits, contributing to the discussions around technology-enabled approaches to citizen engagement and governance. It offers new insights into the interaction between open data and public policy objectives, drawing on the experience of local public sectors in England.

It is one thing to discuss the clauses of a prospective Bill; but to get that Bill through Parliament is a vastly different affair. It was at the Buxton L. A. Conference, in 1896, that the matter was considered, and now, after four years' working and waiting, we have advanced just so far as to have got through the House of Lords “a Bill intituled an Act to amend the Acts relating to Public Libraries, Museums, and Gymnasiums, and to regulate the liability of managers of Libraries to proceedings for libel.” At the present moment this Bill is awaiting an opportunity of coming before the Commons. With this position it must be perfectly familiar, for it was only on account of Lord Avebury's despair at finding no opening for it in the House of Commons that the Association induced Lord Windsor to pilot it through the House of Lords. If the present Parliament lives long enough there is just a chance of the measure being entered upon the statute book; but, with forecasts of an early dissolution confronting us, and with Mr. Balfour's recent announcement of the Government appropriation of private members’ days this session, the prospect is not particularly encouraging. If these slender hopes are not realised, the Bill will be none the forwarder for passing the Upper House; whilst, if it should be so fortunate as to pass the Commons without further amendment, it would at once pass into law. Lord Balcarres has been good enough to take charge of the Bill in the House of Commons, and as it is well “backed,” and has been pruned down by the Standing Committee, and has really nothing of a contentious nature in its provisions, we may reasonably hope that if it once gets a start in the House it will reach a successful finish.

THE earliest catalogue of Cambridge University documents was compiled by Mr. William Rysley, in 1420. Most of the documents enumerated in this list are still extant. An interesting List of the Documents in the University Registry, from the year 1266 to the year 1544, was communicated to the Cambridge Antiquarian Society by the Rev. H. R. Luard, B.D., then University Registrar, on March 6th, 1876. From this, it appears that “The earliest document which the University possesses is so late as the year 1266. The earliest in the Record office is dated 16th July, 13 Hen. III., i.e. 1229. This is a permission to scholars of the University of Paris to come to England, and remain for purposes of study.”

TO many of us it is a matter for regret that we are not able to keep ourselves so closely in touch with library affairs in other parts of the world as we would wish. With American happenings we are, of course, fairly well acquainted, but Colonial effort has not received the attention which is its due. In many places in the Empire methods are, in certain ways, in advance of ours—in more than one country the legislation has been more enlightened than it was in England until quite recently—and everywhere the experience of keen progressive librarians facing their own particular problems must prove of interest and value to those in the home country. Therefore we believe that by devoting this issue to a discussion of some phases of Colonial librarianship we are but answering the large demand for such information.

The findings of the Steering Group on Food Freshness in relation to the compulsory date marking of food contained in their Report, reviewed elsewhere in this issue, has brought within measurable distance the Regulations which were, in any case, promised for1975. The Group consider that the extension of voluntary open date marking systems will not be sufficiently rapid (or sufficiently comprehensive) to avoid the need or justify the delay in introducing legislation.