Government Information in Canada/Information gouvernementale au
Canada, Volume 3, number/numéro 2 (fall/automne
1996)
Carleton University
Ernie Boyko 4
L'Initiative de démocratisation des données (IDD) n'est
autre qu'une entente de coopération conclue pour cinq ans entre des
universités canadiennes, Statistique Canada et six autres
départements ministériels. En vertu de cette entente, les
universités ont un accès privilégié aux
données de Statistique Canada dans le cadre de leurs enseignement
et leurs recherches académiques, moyennant des droits annuels
prévisibles et à un prix abordable. Dans ce document, nous
discutons les répercussions que l'IDD aura sur ces recherches
universitaires et, de façon plus générale, sur la
liberté intellectuelle.
Introduction
Academic freedom has been defined and discussed in many ways at
this conference. The linkage between data and academic freedom may
not be obvious to those who have not been exposed to quantitative
analysis and have no first-hand knowledge of the power of data. We
hope to be able to provide that bridge.
If you define academic freedom as the ability to develop and
express different points of view without fear of reprisals or
hindrance, then it is possible to develop a line of reasoning
showing the importance of full and affordable access to data and
information for teaching and academic purposes.
For the purposes of this paper, we will focus on access to
government information in general and Statistics Canada information
in particular. This is justifiable for a number of reasons:
While we cannot pretend to do justice to all information from all
government sources, it is likely that the analysis of the issues
surrounding access to the Statistics Canada data will illustrate
some of the challenges that academics have faced in this regard.
Background
Traditionally, Statistics Canada data have been available in a
condensed or aggregated form on paper. While these publications
have always had a price attached to them, Statistics Canada did not
start trying to recover the full cost of publishing until the early
1980s. Even under cost-recovery, these publications have remained
broadly available through a network of libraries under the auspices
of the Depository Services Program.
As the volume of government publishing grew and concerns about
deficits increased, the governments of the early 1980s took steps
to contain the costs associated with their publishing activities.
Many publications were either discontinued or converted into
electronic products. In the latter case, dissemination through the
DSP was overtly discontinued. Thus, as more and more government
information moved from paper to electronic format, less and less
was available to the public through the broad network of libraries.
The situation with respect to data files and databases was not the
same. These had always been excluded from the DSP. With the
change in government in 1984, the policy on data became even more
stringent. While data had been available for the marginal
additional cost of dissemination, data producers were suddenly
obliged to recover as many of the costs from collection through
dissemination as feasible. This policy resulted in a huge increase
in prices charged for data.
At the same time, this policy defined data users as special
interests and no distinction was made between the academic
researcher and, for example, the big banks. Thus the academic
community was largely shut out of the picture.
This shift in policy by the government prompted Paul Bernard, Professor
of Sociology at the Université de Montréal and member of the
National Statistics Council, to say, in a paper aimed at Statistics
Canada's pricing practices: ". . . the genuine exercise of
democracy increasingly requires that citizens get access to complex
information and have the skills required to understand it." While he
realized there were and are pressures on Statistics Canada to reduce costs
and increase income, he felt the outcome had been the restriction of
". . . access to information only to groups that have the
solid ability to pay." Bernard felt that this may
". . . hamper the participation in public debates of groups
whose contribution is not backed up by much money" as well as "those who
have no prospect of turning a profit or reaping some tangible and
relatively immediate benefit from using it." This, he stated, is
". . . likely to lead, in the long run, to suboptimal
development and less than full-blown democracy." (1991)
The situation in general and Bernard's paper in particular provided
the impetus for a second paper, "Liberating the Data: A Proposal
for a Proposal." (1992)
History
In April 1993, after receipt of the "Liberation Paper," the Social
Science Federation of Canada (SSFC) hosted a meeting with
representatives from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council (SSHRC), the Association of Universities and Colleges of
Canada (AUCC), the Canadian Association of Research Libraries
(CARL), the Canadian Association of Public Data Users (CAPDU) and
other interested parties to devise a strategy to make Canadian data
more readily available to the education and research communities.
The meeting resulted in the striking of a smaller working group,
under the aegis of the SSFC, to devise a plan that would be
acceptable to all parties. Statistics Canada and the DSP played
advisory roles in this process. While the initiative has involved
government in an advisory role, it is unique in that it was
conceived and developed by members of the Canadian research
community.
The working group, consisting of researchers, representatives from
CARL and CAPDU, as well as members of the SSFC, held a series of
meetings over the next months. Advice from both Statistics Canada
and the Depository Services Program was invited and found to be
invaluable. When the group had formulated a working document to
which both Statistics Canada and the DSP agreed, meetings were
arranged with senior management in several government departments.
The SSFC also met with Ministers and their executive assistants in
order to move the proposal forward. Finally, in December 1995, the
DLI had received a strong enough informal blessing that the project
was deemed to be a go. Letters of agreement were distributed and
data began to be released.
More officially, the DLI received approval by the Treasury Board
Ministers in a February 1996 decision. It was subsequently
included as part of the federal government's Science and Technology
Strategy in March. Most recently, in October 1996, it was
officially announced by Dr. John Gerard, Minister of State for
Science and Technology at a press conference held in conjunction
with National Science and Technology Week and the 30th anniversary
of Carleton University's Data Centre.
The Project
The DLI is a cooperative five-year agreement between universities
and federal government departments, which makes unprecedented
amounts of Statistics Canada's data available for scholarly
research and teaching to the universities for a predictable and
affordable yearly fee.
Under the agreement, Statistics Canada provides participating
institutions with access to all its standard data products. For
their part, universities pay a set annual fee, undertake to make
the data available to members of their communities and ensure that
the data are used only for non-commercial teaching and research.
To date, fifty-two Canadian universities have signed on as
participants.
Implications for Academic Freedom
Data are unlike other tools of the research endeavour. They
provide the raw material from which information and knowledge can
be created. By their nature, data allow for exploration of topics
of interest to the researcher. Unlike printed tables which, like
a postcard, provide a picture of one view of a larger phenomenon,
data can act as a camera, allowing the researcher to manipulate the
background, change the foreground and more fully investigate the
object under study.
For example, only nine questions were asked of every Canadian in
the 1991 Census. One might think that there would be a very
limited amount of information that could be gleaned from a small
number of variables. On the contrary; the number of tables that
theoretically can be produced is enormous--over 350,000.
Statistics Canada published thirteen. If only a fraction of these
tables make "sense," there is still a tremendous gap between what
was produced and what might be of concern. Thus, without access to
the data, the researcher is left with a product that answers
questions the information provider thinks are important, rather
than addressing the problem under investigation.
And it is not just the enormity of the number of tables that may
produce constraints. Decisions regarding what to produce are not
made in a vacuum. Governments and other information providers are
unlikely to produce information that would be critical of their own
programs. Yet an informed policy debate requires that critical
investigation be undertaken. Without access to data, it is
unlikely that such a debate would be possible.
In fact, partly because many academics were unable to afford
Statistics Canada data for nearly a decade, there is now a dearth
of people trained to perform policy analyses. This problem was explicitly
recognized by the Policy-Capacity Task Force, chaired by the Chief
Statistician of Canada, and partially accounts for the federal
support given to the DLI.
Access to data implies the ability to use it. Without trained
analysts, the data will sit gathering dust in tape libraries or on
disks. Thus, training is an integral part of the DLI philosophy.
In fact, there is a second phase of the Data Liberation Initiative
with the overarching objective of creating a data culture in which
the use of data as another piece of evidence in the argument
becomes mainstream.
Finally, the importance of a critical voice from those without a
vested economic interest in the outcome of policy changes cannot be
overemphasized. Without it, we will be treated to the arguments
and analyses of the well-funded and not exposed to both sides of
the issues.
Conclusion
The link between Data Liberation and academic freedom may not be as
tenuous as it first appears. If one cannot access and analyze
numeric information about Canada and Canadians, one cannot fully
participate in the debate about things that may have profound
impacts on the shape of society and on our future freedoms. This
ability requires access to the data, training in their use,
critical thinking, and an environment that supports all of the
above. That is the major objective of Data Liberation and an
essential element of academic freedom.
Post Script: Issues and Concerns
While it is generally agreed that DLI is a major step in the right
direction, the authors will be among the first to admit that more
needs to be done to ensure sufficient and appropriate access to
public data. In the course of our work on DLI, as well as at this
conference, we have been asked several questions about current
and future directions. While we do not have all the answers at
this time, we would like to respond to a number of these concerns
and to provide our thoughts on the future of the initiative.
What happens after five years?
What about colleagues in non-DLI institutions, Canadian students
abroad, users in the not-for-profit sector, small business and the
general public?
Is this the thin edge of the wedge with respect to cost-sharing and the
Depository Services Program (DSP)?
What thought has been given to training for faculty, students and
university service-providers?
Statistics Canada is not the only government data producer. Has
anything been done to include other government data?
Much of the data included in DLI are not at a low-enough level of
detail to enable the consideration of specific policy questions.
Has any thought been given to including special or customized
tabulations in the initiative?
In closing, the authors would like to observe that the questions
raised about DLI are generally positive in nature and are aimed at
broadening and strengthening the concept. This illustrates the
power of a cooperative approach to a problem that had posed a
threat to academic freedom.
References
Bernard, Paul, "Discussion Paper on the Issue of the Pricing of
Statistics Canada Products," February, 1991.
Watkins, Wendy, "Liberating the Data: A Proposal for a Proposal,"
January, 1992.
Watkins, Wendy, and Ernie Boyko, "Data Liberation and Academic Freedom"
Government Information in Canada/Information gouvernementale au
Canada 3, no. 2 (1996).
[http://www.usask.ca/library/gic/v3n2/watkins2/watkins2.html]
[2] This article is based on a paper presented at
"Academic Freedom: The History and Future of a Defining Idea," September 21, 1996, in
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. [5] The DLI External Advisory Group includes members of the
research community as well as data-service providers from a
variety of universities. Its mandate is to advise Statistics
Canada on the day-to-day workings of the DLI and to provide
broad policy guidance. [6] See Bernard, Paul, "Phase 2 of the Data Liberation Initiative:
Extending the Data Culture," Government Information in Canada,
v.3, no.1. [
http://www.usask.ca/library/gic/v3n1/bernard/bernard.html] [7] Because of cutbacks in funding by SSHRC, the Canadian
Federation for the Humanities and the SSFC amalgamated in
April, 1996, forming the HSSFC.
|