ICTs, Citizens and the State – seminar at Michigan State University

Thanks to colleagues in the Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media Department at Michigan State University for their valuable critique of some of my thoughts on the ethical dimensions of e-government initiatives following my seminar there today. My paper examined the moral implications of the use of ICTs in e-government initiatives, focusing especially on national databases, identity cards and surveillance technologies. It suggested that in resolving debates over these, we need to reach ethical resolutions concerning notions of trust, privacy and the law. I also drew attention to the ethical problems that emerge in linking the notion of Universal Human Rights with the introduction of ICTs in developing countries.

In terms of general conclusions, the following seem particularly pertinent:

First, there are indeed many complex ethical aspects associated with e-government, and while to date the emphasis among governments of developing countries, international agencies and donors has very largely been on their positive practical benefits, I suggest that we need to pay much more thorough attention to their ethical grounding, and especially to the balance of rights and interests between citizens and the state.
Second, in so doing, I suggest that three areas warrant particular attention, namely the ethics of trust, privacy and the law. It is here that Geuss’s (2008) emphasis on existing real political contexts, rather than the imposition of some external ideal ethical solution, needs to reiterated. The fundamental point I wish to emphasise is that in each country where e-government initiatives are introduced, people need to ask about the rights and wrongs of such proposals in terms of existing ethical understandings of trust, privacy and the law.
I also sought to raise fundamental questions concerning the continuing validity of much of the human rights based policy and legislation that has dominated global agendas during the last 50 years – particularly in the context of e-government initiatives, and their implication for the rights of individuals and the responsibilities of states. We need to open up for sensible debate the value of the emphasis placed on human rights, criticism of which is all too often seen as being politically incorrect and a taboo subject. However, if people do not actually have ‘rights’ that they can give up to a state, then we need to reconsider the whole edifice upon which such arguments are built. An idealistic belief that people have universal rights has not been any protection for those who have suffered at the hands of those who do not believe in such rights. There is therefore a strong argument that we need to shift the balance away from rights, and towards the responsibilities that people and states have for each other. For example, rather than simply claiming that knowledge is some kind of human right, it might be a much more positive step to argue that states have a responsibility to enable their citizens to gain knowledge.
Capurro (2007) has argued that ‘Western’ concepts of individual privacy are very different from the ‘African’ emphasis on communal traditions. It may well therefore be that many of the existing models of e-government developed around European and north America notions of individual privacy are inappropriate in an African or Asian context, and that instead Africans and Asians should instead be designing new such initiatives around their own traditions and cultural practices
Whatever the benefits to states, individuals and communities of e-government initiatives, there is no doubt that global corporations developing the hardware and software for such systems have been very great beneficiaries. One of the difficult ethical questions that arise from this concerns how we judge whether it is better for poor and marginalised communities for such e-government initiatives to have been introduced, or whether they might actually be more advantaged if their governments did not spend vast sums of money on their implementation. Just because it is possible to implement national citizen databases, to use biodata for ID cards, and to introduce sophisticated digital surveillance mechanisms does not mean that it is right to do so.

Peer review – implications of ‘corruption’

Two separate events that occurred at the start of this month have made me reflect once again on the many myths surrounding the ‘hallowed’ peer review process on which so much academic credibility is seen to lie.

First, I received an e-mail from a friend for whom I had written a reference in connection with a grant application that they had submitted to one of the UK’s Research Councils. They had received the disappointing news that despite two strong references, a third referee had been highly critical of the proposal, casting aspersions on their professional expertise and on the quality of the proposed research. I was appalled by this. The research proposal was one of the best I have recently read, and from what the Research Council said of the comments of the ‘third’ referee, they seemed to me to be completely inappropriate. Either the referee was ignorant of the research field, or they had vested interests in ensuring that this research was not funded.

By coincidence, at about the same time, the BBC picked up on an open letter sent by a group of scientists last July that also criticised the traditional peer review process, but this time with respect to journal articles. As the BBC Science Correspondent Pallab Ghosh commented, “Stem cell experts say they believe a small group of scientists is effectively vetoing high quality science from publication in journals. In some cases they say it might be done to deliberately stifle research that is in competition with their own”. The 14 scientists had written that “Stem cell biology is highly topical and is attracting great interest not only within the research community but also from politicians, patient groups and the general public. However, the standard of publications in the field is very variable. Papers that are scientifically flawed or comprise only modest technical increments often attract undue profile. At the same time publication of truly original findings may be delayed or rejected”. To try to overcome this, they proposed that “when a paper is published, the reviews, response to reviews and associated editorial correspondence could be provided as Supplementary Information, while preserving anonymity of the referees”.

Peer review is one of the fundamental principles upon which the edifice of academic reputation – and financial reward – is based. However, the system is inherently flawed, and I find it somewhat surprising that it still retains such power. Six issues warrant particular consideration:

First, peer review is based on a belief that ‘science’ is in some way value free; that individual prejudice, political beliefs, or social agendas have no effect on academics’ judgements as to the quality of research. Whilst many academics do indeed try to reach impartial judgements about the quality of work that they review, they undoubtedly bring biases to such judgements as a result of their own lives and research practices. Moreover, editors of journals and Research Council panels exercise immense power through their choices of whom to ask to act as referees for papers or grant applications. Science is not, and never has been, value free.
Academic status is in part based upon the number of citations a paper receives. Academics thus seek to publish in the most prestigious journals that have high citation indexes. For a very long time, cartels of academics have therefore operated, deliberately citing each other’s works so as mutually to raise their profiles and status. Academics are only human, and it is scarcely surprising that they operate in this way. There is nothing exceptional about this. Some of us may not think it right, but it happens.
One way that new ideas can begin to find voice is through the creation of new journals. However, these take time to become established, and when status relies so much on having papers published in the most prestigious journals, it remains very difficult for new approaches and ideas to find widespread expression in this way; rarely do the most eminent academics deliberately choose to publish in new and ‘unimportant’ journals!
Those who run the major journals and sit on grant-giving Research Council Boards have immense power, and most do their very best to be fair in the judgements that they reach. However, by definition, the peer review system is designed more to endorse existing approaches to intellectual enquiry, rather than to encourage innovative research.
None of this would matter particularly, and could merely be dismissed as irrelevant academic posturing, if there was not so much money involved. Academic prestige and income depend fundamentally on success in publications and grant applications. The UK’s Research Councils thus invest some £2.8 billion annually in support of research, and it is crucial that this is dispersed wisely. It is therefore extremely sad – albeit typical – that in the case of my friend who had their grant application rejected, there was no right of appeal against the decision. Panel chairs and editors must have the guts to stand up and recognise when they see flawed decisions being made by referees. It is thus extremely encouraging to see that some Research Councils, notably EPSRC, are trying to create exciting new ways to support research that do not place excessive emphasis on traditional peer review processes.
Finally, there is now a good case for exploring alternative ways of judging research ‘quality’. ‘Publishing’ papers openly on freely available websites, and then assessing their quality by the number of ‘hits’ that they get would, for example, be a rather more democratic process than that through which a small number of ’eminent’ academics judge their peers. Of course this would be as open to abuse as existing systems, but at least it would present an alternative viewpoint.

We must debunk the myth that there is something ‘pure’ or ‘objective’ about academic peer review. It is a social process, just like any other social process. It has strengths and weaknesses. For long, it has served the academic community well. However, as the 14 stem biologists who raised the lid of Pandora’s Box implied, it is a system that fails to encourage the most original research, and instead supports the system that gave rise to it. After all, that is not so surprising, is it?

Indian Visa Application Centre, Hayes

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS POST WAS FIRST WRITTEN IN FEBRUARY 2010 AND SOME OF THE INFORMATION IS NOW OUT OF DATE – from 23rd November 2010 a new online application system was introduced – details are available at http://in.vfsglobal.co.uk/. However, the information contained below may well still be of interest for those seeking to get to the Hayes office – for which the blog was originally intended!

————————————————————————————————————————

After reading some of the horror stories online about applying for a visa to visit India, I embarked on the process, and thought some tips might be helpful for others – especially about actually getting to the Centre in Hayes!

Yes, the online system is a bit clunky – and it crashed on me once without saving what I had done – which was a pain! But by automatically checking for completeness it did save time filling out the forms, perhaps incorrectly, and therefore having to redo them again.
Before embarking on completing the forms online, do check you have all the information to hand – down to the level of detail required about the place of both parents’ birth! Unfortunately, there is not an easy to find guide to completing the visa form available in the drop-down menus! One solution is to print out a hard-copy form from those available, and then use this as a guide. The trouble is that not all of the questions asked are unambiguous!
The automatic fee charging system did indeed seem to overcharge me – as least compared with the advertised fees for visas! Watch out for this!
Make sure that you submit all of the relevant required documents, or have them with you (together with two photographs) when you go to the Centre.
For those taking the application form to the Indian Visa Application Centre in Hayes, there are many comments on the Web about how difficult this is to find! It is actually very simple! The Centre is accessed on the south side of Uxbridge Road in Hayes, just by the Grand Union Canal. For those driving from the M4, take the A312 north to its junction with the A4020, and then turn east towards Southall. Don’t take the first right down Springfield Road, but watch out for the large Currys superstore just before the Fiat car showrooms. That is the best place to park! Walk a short distance (c. 100 yards) towards the canal, and turn right just beyond the Fiat garage. The entrance to the Application Centre is then through some large metal gates just after the car park behind the garage. This is just by the A4020 label next to the canal on this map!
Once inside, you will receive a numbered ticket, and will then have to wait in the large seated waiting hall. There are around a dozen service desks, and so the queue moves relatively quickly. At 08.30 in the morning, I only had to wait about 25 minutes to be ‘processed’. Opening hours for submission of passports are 08.30-14.30 Monday to Friday; passport pickup (usually withing 2-3 working days) hours are 13.00-16.30 Monday to Friday.

University Funding

The Higher Education Council for England (HEFCE) announced today its provisional funding distribution to universities and colleges in England for 2010-11. The main decisions by the HEFCE Board were as follows:

“£4,727 million recurrent funding for teaching. This represents an increase of 0.4 per cent in cash terms or a decrease of 1.6 per cent in real terms, compared with 2009-10.
£1,603 million recurrent funding for research. This represents a £32 million or 2 per cent increase in cash terms (maintained in real terms) on the £1,571 million allocated for the 2009-10 academic year.
£562 million in capital funding, which represents a 14.9 per cent reduction in cash terms on the 2009-10 allocation.
£294 million in special funding for national programmes and initiatives. This represents a 7 per cent reduction in cash terms on 2009-10.
£150 million for the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), which compares with £134 million in 2009-10. This represents an 11.9 per cent increase”.

Responses from the university sector were not surprisingly highly critical. As the BBC reported, this represented a cut of £449 million, with teaching budgets being reduced by £215 million, a cut in real terms of 1.6% on 2009-10 levels, research being frozen, and the buildings budget being cut by 15%. It is estimated that these cuts will lead to a reduction in student places in England of about 6,000 compared with 2009-10 levels.

Such cuts add fuel to the universities’ demands to be allowed to charge students higher fees. But in an election year, the student vote may delay such apparently inevitable fee increases. Again, as the BBC notes, “Students campaigning against an increase in tuition fees are targeting MPs who hold seats in a “hit list” of university cities in England. The National Union of Students says MPs must support their campaign against higher fees – or lose the student vote. Among the MPs identified as targets by students are three ministers – John Denham, Ben Bradshaw and Hilary Benn – and the chief whip, Nick Brown”.

While these cuts are in large part driven by the need for the government to reduce the deficit brought about by its efforts to overcome the financial crisis of 2008-9, they do highlight some important questions:

Do we already have too many students going to university?
What is so special about the notion that it is healthy to have 50% of our young people going to university?
Are universities providing appropriate learning opportunities for those who study there?

I live in hope that these cuts might be used sensibly to help provide responses to these questions. Rather than trying to support an increasingly second-rate university system that fails not only its students and academics, but also the wider society of which we are all part, surely the time has come for a cull of universities? Should we not close those that are least effective, and turn them into institutions that would provide the technical skills and expertise that our country so badly needs? Let us stop pretending that half of our population somehow has a right to go to university, and instead use the limited amounts of funding available to support a truly outstanding research and learning culture in institutions that can properly call themselves universities.

For some practical suggestions on how we might achieve this, see my comment on “Solving the crises facing UK universities“