Executive ‘Airbrushed’ Criticisms From Report On Youth Crime Courts

When Reece Walters saw what had happened to his research, he was shocked and appalled. He and colleagues at Stirling University had been tasked with providing an independent report to ministers on youth court pilot schemes, but Mr Walters says he soon found the real limits of academic freedom.

His fight for what he sees as the truth set him at loggerheads with the Scottish Executive and the university, leading to his resignation.

Stirling received a £330,000 commission from the Executive three years ago to conduct an evaluation into the flagship youth courts in Hamilton and Airdrie. But alarm bells quickly began sounding when the researchers were denied access to the architects of the policy to understand their thinking behind the initiative.

The team did interview sheriffs, who raised concerns the courts may be in breach of human rights legislation as they identified the accused at the outset as having previous convictions. Young offenders reportedly complained that they did not understand the process.

The researchers complained that negative points were being omitted from successive Executive progress reports, but the policy was being publicly praised.

Cathy Jamieson, the justice minister, said the research “shows that it has made a promising start”. Last month, she announced that up to three new youth courts would be set up on the “success” of the pilots.

Frustrated by the Executive, Mr Walters and a co-author this year wrote an article for a criminal studies journal airing some of the issues he claims were absent from the published evaluation reports. He claims the Executive “hit the roof” when it was published and complained to his paymasters that a breach of contract had occurred.

According to Mr Walters, James Sheffield, the head of the Justice Department’s analytical services division, petitioned the university directly.

The university instigated disciplinary procedures against the pair, but a four-month inquiry found there was no case against them – although the university denies claims that it caved in to pressure from the Executive. Mr Walters told The Scotsman last night: “They are preventing critical inquiry in order to support policy and that means policies are flawed. Not only is that unjust and clearly undemocratic, it’s arguably corrupt.”

Mr Walters also told Holyrood magazine that the Executive had created an environment where “universities are terrified about losing contracts and academics are looking over their shoulders, being careful not to say anything critical of the Executive”. He said: “One of the hallmarks of a democratic society is the free and open flow of information and a state that prevents, disrupts or misrepresents that flow is acting in a way that is, I would argue, corrupt.”

He told The Scotsman:

“I don’t think this is an isolated issue.”

Fiona Hyslop, the SNP’s education spokeswoman, said: “I am writing to Sir John Elvidge, head of the Civil Service in Scotland, to ask that he conduct an inquiry.”

Robin McAlpine, a spokesman of Universities Scotland, said “cherry picking” research commissioned by governments and private companies was a concern. “Universities are bodies which seek the truth, not convenient truths,” he said.

An Executive spokesman last night strongly denied Mr Walters’ claims: “We may ask for changes to the reports to ensure they meet the required standards of quality and clarity, but we entirely reject the claim that we seek to change, water down or manipulate research.

A spokeswoman for Stirling University denied its internal inquiry was carried out as a result of pressure from Executive.

Mr Walters says the issue triggered his resignation. He is moving to the Open University.

UNDER THE INFLUENCE

Controversy has often surrounded the extent to which outside influences can restrict academic freedom.

In some cases, it can manifest itself in the cherry-picking of certain research findings which suit an organisation’s agenda. In others, influence can be exerted on academics, often by private companies, to come up with research findings which suit their own commercial agenda.

Research funded by the pharmaceutical industry into the effectiveness of new drugs has come under the microscope. Last year Dr Aubrey Blumsohnan, an academic at Sheffield University, was suspended after he raised concerns about research carried out on an osteoporosis drug manufactured by Procter and Gamble.

The research was released under the name of Sheffield researchers although they had not carried out their own, independent analysis of the firm’s drug-trial data. When he raised his concerns, Dr Blumsohnan was told the drug firm was “a good source of income”.

Governments have also been accused. Sir John Krebs, the former chairman of the Food Standards Agency, said moves to ban junk food from schools were approved without any evidence that they would reduce obesity.