Tag: holding

  • Institutions may be holding themselves back by not sharing enough data

    Institutions may be holding themselves back by not sharing enough data

    Wonkhe readers need little persuasion that information flows are vital to the higher education sector. But without properly considering those flows and how to minimise the risk of something going wrong, institutions can find themselves at risk of substantial fines, claims and reputational damage. These risks need organisational focus from the top down as well as regular review.

    Information flows in higher education occur not only in teaching and research but in every other area of activity such as accommodation arrangements, student support, alumni relations, fundraising, staff and student complaints and disciplinary matters. Sometimes these flows are within organisations, sometimes they involve sharing data externally.

    Universities hold both highly sensitive research information and personal data. Examples of the latter include information about individuals’ physical and mental health, family circumstances, care background, religion, financial information and a huge range of other personal information.

    The public narrative on risks around data tend to focus on examples of inadvertently sharing protected information – such as in the recent case of the Information Commissioner’s decision to fine the Police Service of Northern Ireland £750,000 in relation to the inadvertent disclosure of personal information over 9,000 officers and staff in response to a freedom of information request. The same breach has also resulted in individuals bringing legal claims against the PSNI, with media reports suggesting a potential bill for those at up to £240m.

    There is also the issue of higher education institutions being a target for cyber attack by criminal and state actors. Loss of data through such attacks again has the potential to result in fines and other regulatory action as well as claims by those affected.

    Oversharing and undersharing

    But inadvertent sharing of information and cyberattacks are not the only areas of risk. In some circumstances a failure to ensure that information is properly collected and shared lawfully may also be a risk. And ensuring effective and appropriate flows of information to the governing body is key to it being able to fulfil its oversight function.

    One aspect of the tragic circumstances mentioned in the High Court appeal ruling in the case concerning Natasha Abrahart is the finding that there had been a failure to pass on information about a suicide attempt to key members of staff, which might have enabled action to be taken to remove pressure on Natasha.

    Another area of focus concerns sharing of information related to complaints of sexual harassment and misconduct and subsequent investigations. OfS Condition E6 and its accompanying guidance which comes fully into effect on 1 August 2025 includes measures on matters such as reporting potential complaints and the sensitive handling and fair use of information. The condition and guidance require the provider to set out comprehensively and in an easy to understand manner how it ensures that those “directly affected” by decisions are directly informed about those decisions and the reasons for them.

    There are also potential information flows concerning measures intended to protect students from any actual or potential abuse of power or conflict of interest in respect of what the condition refers to as “intimate personal relationships” between “relevant staff members” and students.

    All of these data flows are highly sensitive and institutions will need to ensure that appropriate thought is given to policies, procedures and systems security as well as identifying the legal basis for collecting, holding and sharing information, taking appropriate account of individual rights.

    A blanket approach will not serve

    Whilst there are some important broad principles in data protection law that should be applied when determining the legal basis for processing personal data, in sensitive cases like allegations of sexual harassment the question of exactly what information can be shared with another person involved in the process often needs to be considered against the particular circumstances.

    Broadly speaking in most cases where sexual harassment or mental health support is concerned, the legislation will require at minimum both a lawful basis and a condition for processing “special category” and/or data that includes potential allegations of a criminal act. Criminal offences and allegations data and special category data (which includes data relating to an individual’s health, sex life and sexual orientation) are subject to heightened controls under the legislation.

    Without getting into the fine detail it can often be necessary to consider individuals’ rights and interests in light of the specific circumstances. This is brought into sharp focus when considering matters such as:

    • Sharing information with an emergency contact in scenarios that might fall short of a clear “life or death” situation.
    • Considering what information to provide to a student who has made a complaint about sexual harassment by another student or staff member in relation to the outcome of their complaint and of any sanction imposed.

    It’s also important not to forget other legal frameworks that may be relevant to data flows. This includes express or implied duties of confidentiality that can arise where sensitive information is concerned. Careful thought needs to be given to make clear in relevant policies and documents when it is envisaged that information might need to be shared, and provided the law permits it.

    A range of other legal frameworks can also be relevant, such as consumer law, equality law and freedom of information obligations. And of course, aside from the legal issues, there will be potential reputational and institutional risks if something does go wrong. It’s important that senior management and governing bodies have sufficient oversight and involvement to encourage a culture of organisational awareness and compliance across the range of information governance issues that can arise.

    Managing the flow of information

    Institutions ought to have processes to keep their data governance under review, including measures that map out the flows and uses of data in accordance with relevant legal frameworks. The responsibility for oversight of data governance lies not only with any Data Protection Officer, but also with senior management and governors who can play a key part in ensuring a good data governance culture within institutions.

    Compliance mechanisms also need regular review and refresh including matters such as how privacy information is provided to individuals in a clear and timely way. Data governance needs to be embedded throughout the lifecycle of each item of data. And where new activities, policies or technologies are being considered, data governance needs to be a central part of project plans at the earliest stages to ensure that appropriate due diligence and other compliance requirements are in place, such as data processing agreements or data protection impact assessments are undertaken.

    Effective management of the flow ensures that the right data gets in front of the right people, at the right time – and means everyone can be confident the right balance has been struck between maintaining privacy and sharing vital information.

    This article is published in association with Mills & Reeve.

    Source link

  • Nostalgia is holding Oxbridge back

    Nostalgia is holding Oxbridge back

    Famke Veenstra-Ashmore was an intern at HEPI in the summer of 2024. She previously completed a BA and an MPhil in English at the University of Cambridge and now works as a parliamentary researcher.

    My report about the gender awarding gap at Oxbridge has generated a lot of discussion on social media. Though I was astutely warned by HEPI’s Director to expect flak from certain right-wing publications, I was surprised that the only explicit and personal attack came from a female Times columnist.

    Melaine McDonagh’s column objected to the report’s suggestion that historic institutions like Oxford and Cambridge ought to consider re-thinking the style and presentation of examinations for certain subjects where large gender awarding gaps exist. McDonagh argued that this suggestion was patronising and underestimated the ability of female students to stand their intellectual ground.

    The Times column seemed to pick up on the argumentative threads of much of the discussion about my report online. I noticed a lot of the criticism of the report came from Oxbridge graduates from my parents’ generation, though this view was also held by younger Twitter users, such as Policy Exchange’s Lara Brown.

    While debates around the supervision system and examinations are certainly legitimate and acknowledged in the report, the criticism was steeped in a kind of political and institutional nostalgia. A sense that Oxbridge disentangling itself too much from its traditions for the sake of progressive politics.

    As a recent graduate of Cambridge, where I spent four years, I understand the urge to herald its unique history and methods of teaching. Personally, I thrived, earned two degrees, and enjoyed both examinations and supervisions. But my report wasn’t about personal experience – it was about systemic flaws which were patently disadvantaging entire groups of students.

    Why is it that so many people yearn for the days where women where ‘chewed and spat out’ (to borrow Melanie McDonagh’s phrase) at Oxbridge? David Butterfield’s recent take-down of Cambridge and its ‘infantilising’ approach to teaching also comes to mind when thinking about this surge of ex-Oxbridge students or academics criticising the evolution of institutions in reaction to social change.

    From my perspective, this trend of thinking isn’t sincere. It is not rooted in a genuine concern over the way universities operate and how students think and learn and organise. Rather, it stems from a grievance towards the diversification of student cohorts which has caused the uncomfortable recognition, for Oxbridge traditionalists, that as the student body evolves, the manner of teaching and assessing may have to shift accordingly.

    Many of these commentators miss this crucial point and their thinking is limited by the belief that all of Oxbridge’s academic traditions should be preserved. Butterfield, for example, claims that the ‘freewheeling process’ of allowing a larger proportion of state school students into Cambridge has ‘placed politics ahead of talent’. With similar logic, McDonagh reasons that adjusting examinations and supervisions to address institutional inequalities would unfairly benefit women, who have done nothing to deserve better outcomes, and should therefore receive no extra consideration when it comes to systemic methods of assessing their academic performance.

    Though the comparison between state-school versus private school students and male and female students is limited, I suggest that the arguments offered by Butterfield and McDonagh are motivated by the same emotional basis.

    Research by Cambridge Assessment has shown that state school pupils tend to outperform independent school pupils with similar A Level results at university. The study offered two potential explanations for this: that there are simply less incentives for them to perform highly, or they have been ‘coached’ at school to do well in exams but then struggle when left to their own devices.

    Are progressive politics, then, getting in the way of talent? Or are they enabling students who have not had the resources in their secondary education to thrive and contribute to an academic community which takes their contributions seriously?

    We know that students from academic private schools aren’t entitled to higher marks, nor enjoy higher thresholds of talent, just because of their schooling. In a similar way, we know that Oxbridge was constructed around the education of a very specific, public-school educated, white and able-bodied man. When data suggests there is a problem worthy of addressing, why do ex-students and academics recoil from recognising and addressing this issue?

    Many of the detractors of Oxford and Cambridge’s cultural and social modernisation are pushing against the demands of our rapidly shifting present. The desire to keep things the same is not without merit – the supervision system will rightly continue to be lauded by many. Equally, women at Oxbridge, through the criteria by which they are selected, will do well in exams. Change is so incremental at these institutions that I doubt fundamental changes will ever be on the negotiating table.

    However, small evidence-based changes, such as the scaffolding of exam questions in specific subjects, can make a huge difference to the experience of female students at Oxbridge. Enabling more women to match their male counter parts will encourage more of them to progress into postgraduate study and strengthen academic departments – not weaken them.

    Oxford and Cambridge pride themselves on their reputation for advancing research, technology, and educative practices. In their combined age of around two millennia, why would they stop now?

    Source link