JISCMail - ADMIN-PLANNING Archives

Dear All,

(which I am and have been aware includes various compilers of league tables and HESA in addition to colleagues in planning roles in institutions)

[P.S. You can tell I'm not at work by the way I've allowed myself to go on - I'm sharing it all as I do think it's important that we have an open discussion on this. You might want to get a cup of tea though.]

I would second much of what Sally has said here. My first commitment in these cases is to the rule of law, but with my second being to the improvement of student experience, the protective practices of league table compiles (not just the CUG, which is the current crucible) means that these two things come into close conflict. I, and I think most of us, would wish to respect the rights of others to protect intellectual property; but just as some of us will push the boundaries of what's allowed under specific terms and conditions, there also appears to me to be a pushing of the boundaries on the part of compilers as to what is really 'intellectual property'. Some of what I see seems to me to be over-protection of IP - trying to protect things that aren't IP and/or 'protecting' them from things that would not cause harm.

My first reaction is to want to work with the claimants to IPR to resolve uncertainties, but that is much easier said than done from my position. Compilers of league tables do not want to have bi-lateral discussions with every institution, and I can understand why not (it would simply be unwieldy) - However, the reaction to this of each compiler having a 'group' that seems to many to be secretive and unrepresentative swings too far, for me, in the other direction. I know Sally is (and a few others are) working hard to improve communication between compilers and the sector, and planners in particular. However, progress is for me, and I think others, frustratingly slow. I would (and I guess am) throw down the gauntlet to compilers to be more pro-active in communicating with the sector. The HESPA day conference on league tables was a good start, but things seem to have retreated from the discussions opened there.

I would wish to ask the compilers directly, but I can't as I'm not in any of their clubs, just what they consider to be their IP. So I leave this as an open, indirect, question here to any who wish to answer it; Which of the following do you consider to be part of your IP?

Subject Groupings - JACS is an open standard; do you consider the mapping from JACS (and cost centres, REF UoAs) to your own groupings to be equally open, or Intellectual Property?
Data purchased from HESA (or collected from other sources - e.g NSS) - again, this is open data, though there is a small charge by HESA for processing it - are the processed numbers, or methodologies provided to HESA, considered as IP?
Data processed by the compiler - purchased or collected data are used to produce 'scores' - are these scores and/or the methodologies used to compile them considered as IP?
Publications - tables are published in websites, newspapers and books - following the structure established in this list, I ask if these are considered as IP? (though I would add that I'd be very surprised if anyone answered 'No' to this one)

My opinion on this:

It's very common for open standards to require that things directly produced from common works be equally common. As such, I would hope to see any data that is derived from open data (including that purchased from HESA) to be equally open. At the same time, however, I would respect reasonable* arguments that the methods used to process that data were IP (*not, for example, however, that mapping from JACS to a subject is IP - In my view it's too simple a thing to be considered as such). For me, that makes items 1 and 2 above not IP, the 'scores' in item 3 would not be IP, but the methodologies would be, and anything under item 4 would be IP. I understand that compilers probably don't want to get involved directly in such an open discussion, but those are my suggested questions for the sector to put to compilers to improve the clarification/communication process however that may happen.

If items 1 and 2 above were considered as open, they could be readily made available to the sector in a controlled way through heidi. Even if they were not considered as fully 'open', the controlled use that the new heidi allows could prevent competitive use, hopefully to the satisfaction of the compiler in question. My previous suggestions to have major data purchases (i.e. for league tables) included in heidi (upon publication of the relevant table) have been knocked back. I can understand there are priorities for developments of heidi, but if this is something we want, we should push for it, or for it to at least be pursued by HESA with their customers. This falls into the category of the question of 'protection from what'? Whilst protection from someone in a privileged position running off and using the IP to go into competition is understandable, what damage is caused by business uses within higher education institutions? I'm not aware of any University that uses league table data to make strategic decisions, and would be concerned if I ever worked at one. At most, decisions based on league table analysis may be tactical on which areas of activity need improvement (in order to meet strategic goals), but by far the most common outcome would be to improve and standardise data quality, which in turn benefits the compilers as much as anyone. 'Protection' implies that harm would otherwise be caused, it's not clear to me how any of these business uses would harm the compliers. It's one thing to protect IP, it's quite another to exercise IPR against charities who are not causing harm to the rights holder.

This is another area where I think the situation could benefit from more open dialogue between compilers and the sector - giving compilers the opportunity to explain their concerns as well as enabling the sector to explain the benefits to the public, students and compilers themselves of 'business use' within HE. I don't have any bright ideas how we open up this particular dialogue though - a sector wide forum (e.g. an open conference) might be too unwieldy, but something restricted might seem unfair to those left out or restrict onward communication. I wonder if it might be worth creating a resource of case studies of how we douse league table data when we get it legitimately (or illegitimately, if someone wanted to come forward, perhaps under an amnesty). That might be useful for both the HESA for League tables HESPA/HESA training as well as for evidence in opening discussions with compilers.

Best wishes

Ray

(In a personal capacity, but obviously drawing on my professional experience)

Dear All,

As I committed to do, I have spoken to Bernard Kingston (CUG Chairman) about sharing Excel versions of the tables for us to use for briefing purposes. He has declined to do so, citing all the reasons I mentioned before. He also reminded me that the Guide has a ten-day period during which amendments may be made (and no doubt some of you will be in conversation with CUG seeking changes to your data), so any Excel version circulated now could not be guaranteed as definitive anyway. (The CUG Protocol for handling corrections and queries is here: www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/higher-and-further-education-staff/league-table-background-and-inclusion-criteria/protocol-for-handling-queries-and-corrections-to-the-league-tables/.)

Personal use as a private individual only is defined in the CUG's Terms and Conditions, which can be viewed here: www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/terms-and-conditions/.

Bernard has reiterated that, if people want to use the data for research purposes, they should contact CUG for permission. He cannot recall CUG ever refusing to grant permission for this type of use.

Our case for additional access to the data has not been helped by the messages implying that Ray's code is being used by others for business and professional purposes. Bernard has asked me to pass on his frustration and disappointment at this development and to remind everyone that it is not acceptable under CUG’s Terms and Conditions, which assert its IP rights.

Although it is not what we would like, we do need to acknowledge the reality that we are operating in an increasingly competitive, commercial environment and tasks such as briefing senior managers, that we might see as simple information sharing, do actually influence onward decision-making and, therefore, arguably, have a commercial outcome.

I am committed to developing and maintaining good relationships between the sector and league table compilers through HESPA and I know that Bernard shares that objective. I would be more than happy to hear from colleagues with ideas on how we might take forward such issues in a constructive way.

Best wishes,

Sally

From: Academic, financial or space planning in UK universities [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lashley, Ray
Sent: 25 April 2016 12:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Complete University Guide 2017

As always, working alone means something gets through the testing!

In this case, the list of available subjects on the 'Subject Table' sheet was missing 'Accounting & Finance' because the validation range was set incorrectly [long story omitted]. I've corrected the source version, but you can just as easily update your own copy by selecting 'Subject Table'!A1 and selecting from the menu Data > Validation... and change the Criteria to Subjects!A3:A99 (not A4:A99).

Ray

From: Lashley, Ray
Sent: 25 April 2016 10:07:18
To: Academic, financial or space planning in UK universities
Subject: Complete University Guide 2017

Good Morning!

Here's an empty spreadsheet, devoid of all data but containing some custom functions:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1niJuwcGnuS3rtDVkPBudxEaYLNSrjjmpAHFGYoBxvbM/edit?usp=sharing

If you open this document you probably won't be able to do anything at first, you need to sign in to Google:

(click and follow instructions)

Once you're signed in, go to the file menu and select 'Make a copy...' to create a copy you can edit.

Now enter the url for the CUG into cell B1 on the 'Subjects' sheet (http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings) and the subjects, main table and one subject table should populate in a few seconds. You can select other subjects as required.

Being a Google thing, this probably works better in a Chrome browser, though it should be okay in others.

(There's a hidden sheet with a 'get all subjects' function that's almost working - if anyone fixes it, please share or let me know)

Of course, any use of the CUG data is still bound by the terms and conditions imposed by the provider, in so far as they are applicable in law.

Please don't send any questions or comments on this to my essex.ac.uk email address, as I'm not there this week and this isn't official work anyway. If you do wish to make contact, please use [log in to unmask].

Happy investigating!

Ray