Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Publishing partners
  4. Facet Publishing
  5. Content Listing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

6023 results in Facet Publishing

Page 97 of 302

  • 8 - Keys to their own voices: social tags for a dementia ontology as a human right

    • By Diane Rasmussen Pennington, Dr Diane Rasmussen Pennington is a Lecturer in Information Science at the University of Strathclyde (Scotland).
  • Diane Pennington, Louise Spiteri
  • Book:
    Social Tagging for Linking Data Across Environments
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    01 June 2019
    Print publication:
    30 September 2018, pp 151-168

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Dementia encompasses a range of incurable brain conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, which affected 47 million people worldwide in 2015, a figure that is expected to triple by 2050. It is therefore a worldwide public health priority (World Health Organization, 2017). While the symptoms differ among individuals to some extent, the World Health Organization (WHO) defines them as follows:

  • • difficulties with everyday tasks

  • • confusion in familiar environments

  • • difficulty with words and numbers

  • • memory loss

  • • changes in mood and behaviour.

    • Caring for people living with dementia (PLWD) is a burdensome task and it tends to fall to family members, which causes them considerable stress. The WHO's Global Action Plan on the Public Health Response to Dementia 2017–2025 focuses on dementia prevention as well as on improving the lives of PLWD and their carers so that they ‘live well and receive the care and support they need to fulfil their potential with dignity, respect, autonomy and equality’. The United Nations has called for dementia to be a public health priority in all countries (UN News Centre, 2015).

    This chapter will first explore the uniquely challenging context of information needs and dementia. It will then use dementia as a case study to demonstrate how user-generated hashtags, or other forms of surrogate representation, could be applied in a linked data environment in order to improve access to care, resources, people and other needs.

    Entities in the dementia ontology

    Because just one PLWD affects and, conversely, is affected by, a range of entities, it is perhaps useful to consider some of the different entities and their unique contexts and needs individually. It is then easier to see how they intertwine within what this chapter calls a dementia ontology. An ontology is broadly defined as ‘a formal representation of knowledge with rich semantic relationships between terms’ (Stuart, 2016, 12). A dementia ontology, then, is a representation of knowledge with relationships between entities that are somehow related to a PLWD.

    PLWD

    In relation to the emphasis on person-centred care in dementia (Brooker, 2003), the PLWD should be placed at the centre of this dementia system or ontology.

  • 5 - Making knowledge explicit: knowledge bases, know-how and wikis

  • Katharine Schopflin, Matt Walsh
  • Book:
    Practical Knowledge and Information Management
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    01 June 2019
    Print publication:
    30 September 2018, pp 75-90

  • Summary

    This chapter is about the structured homes we make for expressed knowledge: wikis, enquiries databases, frequently asked questions (FAQs), knowledge bases and know-how pages. Such expressions of shared learning have always existed in organizations, either as official, final, published documents or as quality-assured databases managed by professionals. They were reliable and authoritative, but a coagulation of knowledge at a particular moment. Modern tools allow knowledge repositories to be continually updated and represent a wide range of voices. However, all such repositories are compromises between authority and immed - iacy, and certain, approved knowledge and ongoing thoughts and opinions under discussion. They are also compromises between the diversity of views held by participants and a consensus turned into accepted fact. Structure, provided by categories and tags, offers a means of helping users find information in the future, but can be burdensome for contributors to add as they contribute. And any structure is itself a compromise as subject tags always are, whether imposed by a KIM professional, worked out within a group, or referring to an already existing corporate or industry taxonomy.

    Many people writing about KM like to suggest that, once recorded, knowledge becomes information. In his highly amusing take-down of the then emerging fad of KM, Wilson (2002) asserted that knowledge ‘cannot be ‘captured’ – it can only be demonstrated through our expressible knowledge and through our acts’. Wilson was working within a framework which suggested that knowledge acquisition is something that happens as we negotiate our way through the world. The artefacts we create along the way relate to this knowledge, but are not knowledge themselves. Wenger (1998) felt that the ‘reifications’ of ongoing learning and knowledge-sharing (such as databases, manuals or reports) are valuable even though they could only ever be temporary and imperfect representations of an ongoing practice. Whatever you call these reified objects, and whether or not you consider them to be knowledge or merely information, they are an essential part of the corporate record. A huge and essential part of the work of the knowledge manager is to facilitate the creation of repositories of corporate knowledge and to manage them in such a way that content can be found again.

  • 4 - Social tagging and public policy

    • By Ryan Deschamps, Dr Ryan Deschamps is a postdoctoral scholar in the Department of History at the University of Waterloo, Ontario (Canada).
  • Diane Pennington, Louise Spiteri
  • Book:
    Social Tagging for Linking Data Across Environments
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    01 June 2019
    Print publication:
    30 September 2018, pp 59-88

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Recognising the importance of the diffusion of ideas and learning to policy change, policymakers have utilised social tagging to pressure governments to propose new legislation or forestall existing bills (Ems, 2014; Jeffares, 2014; Saxton et al., 2015). Among the many examples seen in the last decade include the use of Twitter by the Chicago Health Departments to discourage electronic cigarettes (Harris et al., 2014), by politicians to frame healthcare (e.g. #Obamacare) (Hemphill, Culotta and Heston, 2013) or to protest a lack of action on climate change (Segerberg and Bennett, 2011). This chapter will focus on the connection between social tagging as it is understood in the online environment and its connection to the apparatus of the state. Research on the use of social tags for identifying important legislation, promoting scientific knowledge or consulting the public is a growing yet uncertain area of study (Harris et al., 2014; Jeffares, 2014; Kapp, Hensel and Schnoring, 2015; Shapiro and Hemphill, 2014, 2017). Still, the potential of the internet to help bridge the gap between citizens and the state continues to be both an aspiration and a disappointment for the field of internet governance.

    Social tagging in information science refers to ‘the practice of publicly labeling or categorising resources in a shared, on-line environment’ (Trant, 2009, 1). For sociologists, the novelty of social tagging lies in its public nature compared to more private forms of coding in sociological field work (see Postill and Pink, 2012), but for political scientists the public naming of resources is not new at all. Removing the term online from this definition does not erase a wide array of social organization that occurs on a daily basis. The rather arbitrary naming of items in the budgeting process of a government (e.g. for clean technology), in particular, involves public labelling and categorising of resources, conducted by members of affected organizations, political leaders, policy-makers and, in some cases, individuals with unique interest or power in the particular policy area.

    Social tagging itself is not a new process and is closely connected to the role of institutions in public life. In policy theory, institutions refer to systems of formal and informal rules and routines in a society that have accumulated over time.

  • 2 - Introducing knowledge and information management to organizations

  • Katharine Schopflin, Matt Walsh
  • Book:
    Practical Knowledge and Information Management
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    01 June 2019
    Print publication:
    30 September 2018, pp 11-24

  • Summary

    This chapter will look at how to introduce KIM in organizations and how it works. We will examine how organizations are designed and how knowledge and information flows within them, what barriers can appear and how a know - ledge and information manager can tackle them. We will look at the challenges of introducing KIM, how different types of organizations respond to KIM initiatives and how you can work with organizational culture to achieve your aims. We will consider a range of approaches, from large-scale, top-down pro - grammes to small-problem-solving initiatives and strategies for success in different contexts.

    Organizational culture and knowledge and information Management

    Any area of work that uses learning, skills and know-how can benefit from KIM. In her book The Outrun (Liptrot, 2016), Amy Liptrot describes how her parents developed an operative sheep farm in Orkney. Her mother was brought up on a farm, so carried with her considerable internalised knowledge. Her father attended agricultural college and obtained formal skills. Once they had started their sheep farm, the family kept in touch with other members of the community and shared with them new techniques, ideas and problem-solving approaches. But there were specifics to the particular piece of land they were farming. Over a decade, they tried out different approaches until they found a set of practices which worked for their location. Finally, once established, the sheep themselves learned the best means of adapting to the land, habits which, as Liptrot described it, became inbred over generations. In this example, a combination of ingrained knowledge, acquired skills, knowledge-sharing, legacy learning and adaptation produced an organization which worked for its specific circumstances. Other factors which contributed were buying new technology and hiring staff with particular skills. KIM works in similar ways in organizations. The challenge for the KIM professional is to find the best ways of optimising all types of knowledge for organizational circumstances.

    There is no ideal culture for KIM. The authors have worked in a range of organizational cultures, from the very liberal to the very conservative, and there are barriers to adoption in both areas. Liberal organizations with a relaxed working lifestyle and a mature approach to communication may embrace internal social media and be great informal knowledge-sharers.

  • 1 - Introduction to knowledge and information management

  • Katharine Schopflin, Matt Walsh
  • Book:
    Practical Knowledge and Information Management
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    01 June 2019
    Print publication:
    30 September 2018, pp 1-10

  • Summary

    While the special talent of the information professional will always be to connect users to the information or items they require, proactively or reactively, the actual work they carry out has changed considerably since the 1990s. Rather than being gatekeepers, they are now more likely to be advisers, interpreters, designers and trainers. In the library world ‘librarian’ is rare in job titles, particularly (but not exclusively) in the corporate or special library sector. Information professionals are increasingly involved with managing internal information in addition to connecting users to published resources. Meanwhile, records managers have moved from being the end-repository for corporate knowledge, instead frequently working with their colleagues to help them manage their own information from the moment it is created.

    This book aims to provide a practical guide to knowledge and information management (KIM) for those working in organizations. It aims to complement the large body of management literature on the subject, and provide advice and best practice on the KIM work information professionals are required to do. As part of this, the authors have consulted professionals and reflected on their own experiences within the field. The book also aims to demonstrate new approaches to KIM and consider how developments may change its practice in the future.

    Knowledge management (KM) emerged as a business practice in the 1980s.

    It has never been a practice exclusive to the information profession. Its purpose has been to enable organizations to do whatever they do as best they can, by facilitating the organization and sharing of tacit and expressed knowledge. It is most often associated with corporate bodies. However, the authors believe it applies in any organization. A recent article (Daland, 2016) considered the benefits of KM to academic libraries, where providing access to published materials has traditionally been the central role of its service. Townley's 2001 article ‘Knowledge Management and Academic Libraries’ concluded that approaches from KM would benefit academic libraries. And the last part of Seely Brown and Duguid's The Social Life of Information (2002) showed presciently how academic learning is affected as much by institutional experience as by learning materials themselves. Perhaps because of their multiple missions and varied users, public libraries have found KIM less relevant.

  • 7 - Research data archives: current data management and data audit practices

  • from PART II - CASE STUDIES
  • Edited by Milena Dobreva
  • Book:
    Digital Archives
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    02 October 2019
    Print publication:
    30 September 2018, pp 139-156

  • Summary

    Introduction

    In the last decades, archives have been developed in order to preserve organisational and institutional research related outputs. These platforms today accommodate storage and preservation needs of discipline-specific research artefacts such as GenBank or The Archaeology Data Service, but also more generic ones, like figshare and Zenodo. In order to maximise their visibility and searchability, registries like re3data have been deployed to index them. Another form of platform ensuring long-term preservation are institutional repositories. These are multi-purpose academic infrastructures that were primarily developed to support the need to deposit institutional research outputs and records of academic and administrative activities. In the open access world, these serve the scope of green open access (open access to research publications implemented via deposit of publications to institutional repositories), which supports research archiving. However, in consequence of the research data management and data-intensive science flow prevailing in recent years, institutional repositories’ content and capabilities have been extended and enhanced. The institutional repositories of the University of Pittsburgh, D-Scholarship @ Pitt, and the University of Cambridge, Apollo, form prime examples of such behaviour.

    Research data archives are important to a number of user stakeholders:

  • • Archivists guide researchers and scholars when creating research data management plans; they ensure the longevity and potential re-use of data afterwards; they provide data anonymously when confidentiality is required; and tell researchers how long data will be preserved.

  • • General users seek datasets that have been properly described with metadata and thus are understandable; they require easy access to them.

  • • Funders promote data sharing and re-use, which enables cross discipline collaboration, makes research outputs cost-effective, and makes sharing of quality data more efficient while at the same time reducing the costs of conducting research.

    • The role of library and information scientists and computer scientists in setting up and managing research data archives is important. Scholars, being dedicated to the research process, are often unprepared for a number of risks that might occur such as natural disasters, facility infrastructure failure, storage failure, server hardware or software failure, application software failure, format obsolescence, legal encumbrance, human error, malicious attack, loss of staff competency, loss of institutional commitment, and loss of financial stability.

  • Afterword: the future of knowledge and information management

  • Katharine Schopflin, Matt Walsh
  • Book:
    Practical Knowledge and Information Management
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    01 June 2019
    Print publication:
    30 September 2018, pp 108-112

  • Summary

    The robots are coming…. Well, in truth they are already here and doing quite nicely. At the time of writing, one of the authors of this book was well advanced in implementing an artificial intelligence (AI) program to deliver self-service and self-help functionality to an employee portal. The project involved users engaging not with a traditional search box, or through a navigation aid, nor even connecting directly with an HR team agent, instead interrogating a chatbot. The chatbot will have direct access to the HR portal and its knowledge base, with policies and instructions, but it will also be able to query the HR engine which governs processes such as annual leave. If required, it can also interrogate the learning and development platform to point users to training manuals or courses in order to help them to complete a task. If a user asks ‘How do I find out how much leave I have?’, the chatbot will point them to their annual leave page and share a link showing how to submit annual leave requests. If they ask questions such as ‘Can I take annual leave tomorrow?’, the chatbot can bring up the relevant policy.

    This fairly simple machine learning approach is just the start of what AI may be able to do to connect people to the knowledge they need. None of it is possible without the intervention of a knowledge manager to implement the business rules metadata which connect the question to the information. If you tell the bot to look for certain tags, or even natural language formulations, it can create connections both at the point of searching and by adding content to news feeds. However, beware of the salesperson who tells you their AI is capable of building the business rules and indexes for itself. The authors are yet to see a solution even close to having this capability. Like any human knowledge worker the chatbot or AI still needs to be taught. But once it learns, it can process a huge quantity of data at great speed. The next stage would be for the bot not simply to point to a relevant policy, but to actually answer the question and anticipate that the next thing the user wants to do is book some annual leave.

  • 5 - Scientific information policies in the European context

  • from PART I - DRIVERS FOR MODERN DIGITAL ARCHIVES
  • Edited by Milena Dobreva
  • Book:
    Digital Archives
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    02 October 2019
    Print publication:
    30 September 2018, pp 97-120

  • Summary

    Introduction and background

    The discourses on knowledge production and knowledge dis - semination have traditionally been dealt with separately, as referring to two different systems: the ‘science system’ and the ‘scholarly communication system’. Yet, this separation was even more reinforced by being the processes carried out by the two communities: scientists as knowledge production agents, information professionals as knowledge dissemination agents (Basili, 2009).

    This same distinction applies also to policy issues and measures, conceived independently for scientific research from one side, and dissemination and access to scientific information from the other (Basili, 2010). Correspondingly, such a dichotomy reverberates throughout two basic threads of literature: one dealing with the ‘knowledge society’ (e.g. David and Foray, 2002; Sorlin and Vessuri, 2007) and one dealing with the ‘information society’ (e.g. EC, 1999; Webster, 2006).

    In recent decades, such clear separation is largely blurred, as a consequence of techno-economic forces and factors affecting knowledge dissemination, primarily the internet and the entrepreneurial climate in research and development. To summarise in a nutshell, the two discourses on the information society and knowledge society can be interpreted and analysed as converging towards the discourse on the ‘knowledge economy’, with major policy implications for scientific information, since, at the same time, an economic logic increasingly enters into the domain of knowledge dissemination.

    This interdependent connection appears evident in the policy documents from the European Commission and the European Parliament released since the Lisbon Council of March 2000, and effectively expressed in European Commission COM(2012) 392 final: ‘Knowledge is the currency of the new economy’ (EC, 2012a).

    Focusing the attention on economic pressures more than on technological opportunities, in this chapter a short account will be given on how the transformation from academic science to entrepreneurial science has been theorised in the research policy literature.

    Theoretical literature about research policy is abundant and multifaceted, nevertheless, reference here is made to the concepts ‘Mertonian norms’, ‘mode 2 knowledge production model’ and ‘Triple Helix’, which have a significant impact on the rationale of this chapter.

  • 2 - Freedom of information

  • Edited by Rachael Maguire
  • Book:
    Information Rights for Records Managers
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    01 June 2019
    Print publication:
    28 September 2018, pp 13-36

  • Summary

    Introduction

    This is the first of two chapters on how to respond to a request for information made under the UK and Scottish Freedom of Information (FoI) Acts. The UK Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) covers English, Welsh and Northern Irish public authorities and any public authorities which operate across the UK. The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act (FoISA) covers Scottish public authorities only. While similar to the FoIA, the FoISA does deviate from it, particularly in the matter of exemptions.

    Covered in this chapter are:

  • • the basic method for handling a request, which is also useful for the EIR;

  • • how to recognise a request;

  • • how to process a request;

  • • how to handle requests for clarification;

  • • how to create a response.

    • Covered in Chapter 3 are:

  • • the exemptions and how to apply them;

  • • dealing with internal reviews;

  • • dealing with complaints to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC));

  • • managing the publication scheme.

    • In both chapters, when I refer to ‘you’ I am thinking of the records manager or information manager who finds themselves in the position of having to manage responses to FoI requests. You can read through the whole of both chapters or dip into the parts that have the most relevance for you. I suggest reading through all of this chapter if you are completely new to FoI, as it covers not just how to process a request but also how to recognise a request or a non-request, and how to deal with vexatious and repeated requests. Most requests that you deal with will be to find information, package it and send it out, but others will be more tricky and this chapter provides guidance on how to process those trickier requests.

    Handling requests: the basic method

    The basic method for a one-person or small team to deal with a request for information is set out below. All points are expanded further in the chapter, but, to summarise, you will need to do the following:

  • Determine that you have received a valid request for information.

  • 4 - Trusting the records: the Hillsborough football disaster 1989 and the work of the Independent Panel 2010–12

  • Michael Moss, David Thomas
  • Book:
    Do Archives Have Value?
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    02 October 2019
    Print publication:
    28 September 2018, pp 63-74

  • Summary

    This chapter is not about the disaster of 1989 itself. It is about the implications for archives and for the role of archivists, specifically as a result of the work of the Independent Panel set up in 2010 to research the events of the disaster (Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, 2012 (hereafter RHIP)).

    Although the work of the Panel ended in 2012 the legal consequences of the issues raised are still being considered in 2019 and records continue to be used (and indeed new ones managed) with the professional help of records managers and archivists.

    Background

    The Independent Panel which reported on the disaster was a response to the perceived needs of society for transparency as represented, in this case, by the long-standing expressed requirements of the people most affected by the man-made tragedy which killed 96 people – crushed to death, standing together, in locked football-ground pens at the Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield on 15 April 1989. The response by the government in 2010, first Labour and then Conservative, was to establish an Independent Panel to review the evidence anew. For the families of those who lost their lives and the survivors, this disaster was, and is, a conflicted history, causing much personal pain to them, many of whom have been involved for over 25 years, and still are, in trying to obtain justice.

    The families fought for the truth, which had been publicly disputed from the day itself, although the causes of the disaster had been more or less established by the Taylor Public Inquiry in its interim and final reports of 1989 and 1990 (RHIP, 186–225). They wanted the truth about what had happened on the day to be recognised by the media and the rest of society, and in particular by the government. In the press and elsewhere the blame had been firmly placed on the football fans themselves and this view was commonly believed, except by the families of those killed and many Liverpudlians.

    The coroner's unusual ‘generic’ inquests of 1990, which considered the causes of the 95 (eventually 96) deaths together rather than individually had returned a verdict of ‘accidental death’ for the 95 who died (RHIP, 255–91).

  • 10 - A search for truthiness: archival research in a post-truth world

  • Michael Moss, David Thomas
  • Book:
    Do Archives Have Value?
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    02 October 2019
    Print publication:
    28 September 2018, pp 167-194

  • Summary

    Introduction

    The first two decades of the twenty-first century have witnessed a surge in populist rhetoric, as politicians around the world have challenged the factual basis of reality. They have proclaimed that reality is not real, that news reports based upon evidence is fake and generally relied upon a partisan belief that party subsumes truth.

    At the same time, there has been resistance to this wave of unreality. Sometimes it has been on the part of purveyors of factual data (such as most news organizations), other times from politicians challenged by the forces of unreality, and sadly, yet even other times by those who would just as eagerly embrace their own unreality as long as it opposed those with whom they battle in factional or partisan disputes.

    The forces tied to the present president, Donald Trump, seem to have been the source of much of this rancour, with the constant stream of outrageous claims made by Mr Trump and his administration. According to Allen Abel writing in the 11 December 2018 issue of the Canadian magazine, Macleans: ‘As the president's hallucinatory world heaves and crumbles, Americans ponder what kind of country they wish to live in—and what kind of people they want to be.’ It is noted, however, that the assertions of living in a post-truth world predate Mr Trump's presidential campaign (Manjoo, 2008, 1–7).

    For example, in the 1964 Pulitzer Prize winning study of Anti- Intellectualism in America, Richard Hofstadter wrote that although much of his study derived from events in the remoter American past, the impetus to study anti-intellectualism was driven by his discomfort over the Red Scares of his immediate history, in particular the populist rants of MacCarthyism (Hofstadter, 1963, 1-5). We must therefore assume that there are other elements at play to challenge reality.

    Yet, if we are to support reality, or at least evidence-based research, we must embrace the bastions of data, from which reality, or at least an image thereof, may be drawn. For the most part, these accumulations of data are divided between published and unpublished data. Since published material may be more easily available, the more intriguing repository to examine is the archive, the collected fonds of institutional information.

  • 6 - Memories of the future: archives in India

  • Michael Moss, David Thomas
  • Book:
    Do Archives Have Value?
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    02 October 2019
    Print publication:
    28 September 2018, pp 89-104

  • Summary

    The beginnings of archives in colonial India

    Archives have always been more about re-collecting the future than the past. In a neglected essay titled ‘Memories of the future’ the well-known Shakespeare and Middleton scholar Gary Taylor wrote that ‘We can imagine the future only by recollecting the past’ (Taylor, 1996, 237). Archives ‘re-member’ not simply by collecting materials from the present and the past, but also by selecting and organizing them, so that each act of collecting or ‘re-collecting’ is also at the same time an act of forgetting. ‘All the futures of the past are inaccurate’, writes Taylor (Taylor, 1996, 246). Human technologies of memory are designed to overcome the limitations of bodily memory, irrespective of whether we think of the ‘body’ from the viewpoint of a ‘naive physicalism’ or a ‘naive mentalism’. One may think of the ‘memory’ as unselfconscious of visceral processes or as cognizant of the consciousness as ‘embodied’ and of the body ‘enminded’ (Searle, 1984, 13–27). Neither position would make a difference to the perceived function of technologies of memory. While our memory-machines do the remembering for us, we aim to marshal memories for our use and to fashion a memory bank for the future the way that we would like to imagine it.

    Such attempts were made in western arts of memory, such as in the place-rhetoric or topoi since Aristotle and the pseudo-Ciceronian Ad Herennium (Moss, 1996, 8). In the twelfth century, Hugh of St Victor in his De arca Noe mystica raised the machine universitatis, a memorial ark which had elements of the mappa mundi and of linea generationis, on a tablet or page of a book (Carruthers, 1990, 231–9). Hamlet is probably thinking of such a tablet (or ‘table’) when he swears to erase all ‘trivial fond records’ from the ‘table of [his] … memory’ and admit ‘Within the book and volume’ of his brain only his father's commandment to seek revenge (Shakespeare, 1988, Hamlet, 1.5.98–103).1 God had inscribed his commandments to Moses in written letters, and Hamlet does likewise with his father's injunctions. Writing is an aid to cultural memory. Keeping records on clay tablets helped Ashurbanipal to centralise power and claim in 668 BCE that he was ‘King of the Universe’.

  • 4 - Data protection: principles and main features

  • Edited by Rachael Maguire
  • Book:
    Information Rights for Records Managers
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    01 June 2019
    Print publication:
    28 September 2018, pp 73-98

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Unlike Freedom of Information and the Environment Information Regulations, data protection is not just a straightforward request for information. It includes requests for personal information, but is also meant to govern how personal data is collected, used, managed and disposed of by organizations.

    On 25 May 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force within the EU member states. The Regulation applies in the UK, through the Data Protection Act (DPA) 2018, which also incorporates how to manage personal data relating to law enforcement and intelligence services.

    In many ways, the GDPR builds on the Data Protection legislation produced under the previous Directive.

    Above all, keep in mind: the main point of data protection is to let individuals know what you are doing with their personal information. Transparency is the key.

    Data Protection has a lot of different aspects, so has been divided into three chapters. If you are the official Data Protection Officer (DPO) or supporting that role, you will need to be able to respond on all of the following:

  • • Chapter 4 covers the basics: the principles, including data breaches, definitions, lawful basis for processing, special categories data and the difference between data controllers and data processors.

  • • Chapter 5 covers how to respond to requests relating to personal data, including subject access, deletion, portability, marketing and automated processing. In other words, it covers requests from individuals about their data.

  • • Chapter 6 covers internal enquiries about data protection that you are likely to receive from colleagues. It includes guidance on privacy notices, data protection impact assessments and how to handle the sorts of questions you are likely to receive relating to personal data.

    • First, though, is an explanation of the differences between the former Directive that led to the 1998 DPA and Regulations.

    Regulations and Directives

    The GDPR is a Regulation, whereas the EU law it replaces was a Directive. What is the difference?

    A Directive is intended to be translated by the EU member states into individual legislation within those states. So the EU Directive (95/46/EC) was the precursor to the 1998 DPA in the UK and similar legislation in the other EU member states. This meant that each piece of legislation based on the Directive had its own individual quirks.

  • 3 - Freedom of information exemptions

  • Edited by Rachael Maguire
  • Book:
    Information Rights for Records Managers
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    01 June 2019
    Print publication:
    28 September 2018, pp 37-72

  • Summary

    Introduction

    This chapter focuses on the exemptions available under the UK Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act (FoISA). They are covered in order of the FoIA, but any section number differences are included in Table 3.1 so that if you work for a Scottish public authority you can find the right section more easily.

    The first section covers what you have to consider when applying an exemption, which also includes whether you have to apply the public interest test or prejudice test. Both of these are explained below. Each exemption is discussed, with the particular issues to look out for when you are thinking of applying the exemption. If you are new to Freedom of Information (FoI), you will find this section more useful. Those with more experience may prefer to head straight to the exemption guidance.

    Covered in this chapter are:

  • • the exemptions and how to apply them;

  • • dealing with internal reviews;

  • • dealing with complaints to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC);

  • • managing the publication scheme.

    • Covered in Chapter 2 are:

  • • the basic method for handling a request, which is also useful for the EIR;

  • • how to recognise a request;

  • • how to process a request;

  • • how to handle requests for clarification;

  • • how to create a response.

    • As in Chapter 2, when I refer to ‘you’ I am thinking of the records manager or information manager who finds themselves in the position of having to manage responses to FoI requests. You can read through the whole of both chapters or dip into the parts that have the most relevance. I suggest reading through all the exemptions at least once to ensure that you are familiar with them all. You will use certain exemptions many times, but others very rarely. It is worth knowing about those other ones for the few occasions when you need them.

    Refusing the request due to an exemption

    Section 17 of the FoIA and section 16 of the FoISA set out the requirements of a refusal notice. The two sections are similar, but not the same.

Page 97 of 302