The Need for Flexible and Adaptive Research in an Environment of Diverse Barriers to Accessing Data

There is concern among socio-legal scholars about the relationship that has formed between scholarly research and public policy. Pat Carlen contends that in the case of criminology, this relationship sees scholars increasingly struggle to maintain their critical capacity.¹ The problem, according to Carlen, is that scholars trying to increase research output through partnership with policy makers often find this partnership hinges on an agreement that any research produced will conform to the parameters of the policy makers’ needs.² Furthermore, when scholars do not seek partnership with policy makers, they may face political hurdles in gaining access to institutional data. Scholars may be required to demonstrate the direct policy relevance of their research before policy makers will consider the type and extent of access granted. These kinds of barriers to data access have the potential to adversely impact the critical merit of socio-legal scholarship.

This paper employs my own research as a case study to explore some of the foundations for socio-legal scholars’ concerns about the appearance and impact of barriers to institutional data. My research aimed to explore how correctional agencies approach the offender rehabilitation principle of responsivity in relation to Indigenous offenders. Contemporary correctional literature states that to be responsive, correctional agencies must identify variances among offenders that may affect the delivery and reception of programs.³ Significantly, however, it is unclear what, if anything, correctional agencies should do to accommodate variances once identified. Accordingly, I sought access to correctional agencies to interview staff working in the areas of Indigenous offender rehabilitation policy and service who could elaborate on their agencies’ approach to Indigenous offender responsivity. Agencies in four jurisdictions were approached. In seeking access to this institutional data, I encountered two main barriers that impacted the scope and direction of the project in unexpected ways.

The first task of any scholar wishing to employ institutional data in her research is to identify the process by which access to correctional institutions and personnel is granted. In the case of correctional institutional data, this is not always easy. Although a few correctional agencies articulate the process and provide a copy of the necessary documentation on their Web site (as was the case for the first jurisdiction included in my research project), other agencies provide little or no information on their Web site about the procedure required for scholars to gain access to institutional data. Indeed, none of the three other jurisdictions approached for my research project provided any indication on their Web sites that a standard procedure existed. Moreover, attempts to contact these institutions via their publicly available enquiry contact details elicited little further information.

Scholars intent on basing their research on data from institutions must therefore often resort to informal means of deriving the applicable process and obtaining the required documentation. One favoured method is drawing on personal and professional networks to locate contacts working within the institution to which access is sought.⁴ Once located, these informally referred contacts can be an invaluable source of information, either directing the scholar towards the appropriate documentation or to another contact who may, in turn, possess the relevant knowledge. The problem with this approach, however, is that it can be time-consuming and may yield inconsistent results. For example, in the case study it took an average of five months and four emails to various contacts at the correctional agencies before the person who managed access was located. In the case of one jurisdiction, although contacts were made through this approach, these contacts were either not working in the correctional sphere or were unresponsive beyond initial communications.

Losing time identifying contacts and locating the correct application form for institutions that do not openly provide these details is problematic when so much scholarly research is time-constrained. In Australia, for example, the Federal Government’s Australian Research Council only funds projects for a maximum of five years, with most funded for only three years.⁵ Many internal university research schemes also limit funding for projects up to three years. Moreover, both funding bodies commonly expect...