DOCSLIB.ORG

Data Protection and Research Ethics Challenges and Opportunities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Researching Extremist Content on Social Media Platforms: Data Protection and Research Ethics Challenges and Opportunities Manjana Sold, Julian Junk GNET is a special project delivered by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, King’s College London. The authors of this report are Manjana Sold and Julian Junk The Global Network on Extremism and Technology (GNET) is an academic research initiative backed by the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), an independent but industry‑funded initiative for better understanding, and counteracting, terrorist use of technology. GNET is convened and led by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR), an academic research centre based within the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing those, either expressed or implied, of GIFCT, GNET or ICSR. CONTACT DETAILS For questions, queries and additional copies of this report, please contact: ICSR King’s College London Strand London WC2R 2LS United Kingdom T. +44 20 7848 2098 E. [email protected] Twitter: @GNET_research Like all other GNET publications, this report can be downloaded free of charge from the GNET website at www.gnet‑research.org. © GNET Researching Extremist Content on Social Media Platforms: Data Protection and Research Ethics Challenges and Opportunities Executive Summary he nexus between terrorism and technology is socially and politically more relevant than ever. Almost every mobilisation and Tradicalisation process and every violent attack, whether carried out or prevented, has an online component to it. Researchers, not least those involved in GNET, are meeting head on the challenge of analysing these processes in difficult empirical online environments. Even when taking into account ever changing platforms and policies, as well as the shift towards ever more closed and encrypted spaces, there is abundant empirical data. This abundance creates challenges and opportunities of its own,1 yet there are also hard limits to and grey zones around what a researcher dealing with extremist online content can and is allowed to do, which brings in ethical and data protection considerations. Discussions of such topics gained much relevance in recent years and are particularly lively in international research consortia. While summarising the state of these discussions around ethics and privacy, this GNET report identifies the limits of and opportunities for research and formulates related recommendations for researchers and tech companies. It proceeds in three steps: first, it summarises some of the main ethical considerations that a researcher in this academic field should bear in mind; second, it provides an overview of the main data protection principles that are to be observed and highlights the opportunities for and balancing acts required of researchers in this regard; and third, it discusses the interplay between researchers, data sources and the policies of platforms, condensing in this context some key recommendations for researchers, tech companies and regulators. The most important points are: first, more cross‑platform access points and databases would provide incentives for a broader and more vibrant research field; second, badly needed international research collaboration around analysing extremist online content would benefit from greater international harmonisation and a convergence of data protection rules; third, data protection regimes should not be seen as inconveniences but as enabling research by providing a clearer demarcation of what is and is not possible; and, lastly, the dynamic empirical field requires regular mechanisms of exchange between tech companies, researchers and regulators to adapt policies, habits and legal frameworks in a way that does justice to the social and political relevance of the nexus between extremism and technology. 1 Abdullah Alrhmoun, Shiraz Maher, and Charlie Winter, Decoding Hate: Using Experimental Text Analysis to Classify Terrorist Content, ICSR King’s College London (2020). 1 2 Contents Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 5 2 Central Ethical Considerations 7 Ethical principles that concern the individual research subject 7 Ethical principles that concern the societal dimension 9 Ethical principles with regard to researchers themselves 9 3 Central Data Protection Principles – Legal Limits, Challenges and Opportunities for Researchers 11 Legal regulations for research with personal data with the consent of the persons concerned’ 11 Legal regulations for research with personal data without the consent of the persons concerned 13 4 Data Source, Platform Policies and Researchers – Overview, Interplay and Recommendations 17 Twitter 17 Facebook 18 Google 19 TikTok 19 Telegram 20 General Recommendations 20 5 Concluding Remarks 23 Policy Landscape 25 3 4 Researching Extremist Content on Social Media Platforms: Data Protection and Research Ethics Challenges and Opportunities 1 Introduction he digital space played a central role in the radicalisation processes of many perpetrators of past attacks:1 extremists Tincluding Anis Amri (Berlin, Germany), Brenton Tarrant (Christchurch, New Zealand) and Stephan Balliet (Halle, Germany) took advantage of social media platforms not only to gather and distribute information, and to network and stage, but also to exchange ideas with like‑minded people and sometimes even to share an attack live for thousands of viewers. It is through this communication by radical or extremist actors that we can learn much about the radicalisation processes that take place in the virtual world. The content and its presentation, as well as the way in which these actors communicate, are of central importance in that regard and can serve as a background against which to develop the most appropriate preventative and demobilising measures. In the context of this research field, data retrieved from social media naturally has become increasingly important.2 This is exemplified by numerous scientific publications based on data from social media: for instance, Facebook,3 Twitter,4 YouTube5 and Instagram.6 An extremely large pool of data can now be accessed and used to develop and test hypotheses.7 These opportunities go hand in hand with limitations and pitfalls. This relates to potential ethical and data protection requirements, which certainly provide challenges for researchers but also many opportunities. While transparency and the guideline “maximising benefits and minimising harm” are essential throughout the entire research process, there are further principles and guidelines that need to be considered. In the first two sections, we summarise some key ethical considerations that a research process in this academic field should include and we provide insights 1 We are immensely grateful for the comments from Sebastian Golla on earlier versions of this report and his skilful legal guidance through so many of our research endeavours in the last years. Thanks go as well to Clara‑Auguste Süß for her comments and Leo Bauer and Klara Sinha for their support in finalising this report. 2 Sebastian J. Golla, Henning Hofmann, and Matthias Bäcker, “Connecting the Dots: Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung in Sozialen Online‑Medien im Lichte von DS‑GVO und BDSG‑neu,” Datenschutz und Datensicherheit – DuD 42, no. 2 (2018): 89, http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11623-018-0900-x; Manjana Sold, Hande Abay Gaspar, and Julian Junk, Designing Research on Radicalisation using Social Media Content: Data Protection Regulations as Challenges and Opportunities, 2020. 3 Agata Błachnio, Aneta Przepio´rka, and Patrycja Rudnicka, “Psychological Determinants of Using Facebook: A Research Review,” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 29 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1 080/10447318.2013.780868; Ralf Caers et al., “Facebook: A Literature Review,” New Media & Society 15 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813488061; Stefania Manca and Maria Ranieri, “Is It a Tool Suitable for Learning? A Critical Review of the Literature on Facebook as a Technology Enhanced Learning Environment,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 29 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12007; Ashwini Nadkarni and Stefan G. Hofmann, “Why do People Use Facebook?,” Personality and Individual Differences 52, no. 3 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007; Robert E. Wilson, Samuel D. Gosling, and Lindsay T. Graham, “A Review of Facebook Research in the Social Sciences,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612442904. 4 Jytte Klausen, “Tweeting the Jihad: Social Media Networks of Western Foreign Fighters in Syria and Iraq,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 38, no. 1 (2015); Amandeep Dhir, Khalid Buragga, and Abeer A. Boreqqah, “Tweeters on Campus: Twitter a Learning Tool in Classroom?,” Journal of Universal Computer Science 19 (2013); Shirley Ann Williams, Melissa Terras, and Claire Warwick, “What Do People Study When They Study Twitter? Classifying Twitter Related Academic Papers,” Journal of Documentation 69 (2013). 5 Chareen Snelson, “YouTube Across the Disciplines: A Review of the Literature,” MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Journal of Qualitative Methods 7, no. 14 (2011), http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no1/ snelson_0311.htm; Raphael Ottoni et al., “Analyzing Right-wing YouTube Channels: Hate, Violence and Discrimination,” (2018); Kostantinos Papadamou et al., “Understanding
Recommended publications
  • 04 E 157 Traianou AFT Mdh E015p039

    04 E 157 Traianou AFT Mdh E015p039

    Vol. 15: 39–47, 2015 ETHICS IN SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS Published online May 27 doi: 10.3354/esep00157 Ethics Sci Environ Polit Contribution to the Theme Section ‘Academic freedom and tenure’ OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS AS I SEE IT The erosion of academic freedom in UK higher education Anna Traianou* Department of Educational Studies, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, SE14 6NW, UK ABSTRACT: In this article, I treat ‘academic freedom’ as referring to the autonomy that academics need if they are to do their work well, on analogy with what is required in other professional occupations. In these terms, I argue that there are 2 aspects of academic freedom: the degree of autonomy that universities have from governments, and the autonomy that academics have within universities. Using this framework, I explore how, from the 1980s onwards, UK governments have increasingly intervened in higher education, on the basis of the assumption that universities must serve the economy, seeking to maximize and measure the ‘returns’ on public investment. I argue that these external developments have promoted internal changes within universities away from collegial modes of organization and towards more managerial ones, and as a result have signifi- cantly reduced academic freedom. I conclude by briefly examining developments in the UK in terms of a rather different conception of academic freedom, one that is currently quite influential, which virtually identifies it with ‘free speech’ for academics and students. KEY WORDS: Academic freedom · Neoliberalism · New public management · UK higher education · Professionalism · Free speech INTRODUCTION which have not opposed the siege of Gaza (see But- ler 2006, Goldberg 2013, Robin 2014).
  • Azad Kashmir

    Azad Kashmir

    Azad Kashmir The home of British Kashmiris Waving flags of their countries of origin by some members of diaspora (overseas) communities in public space is one of the most common and visible expressions of their ‘other’ or ‘homeland’ identity or identities. In Britain, the South Asian diaspora communities are usually perceived as Indian, Pakistani, (since 1971) Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans. However, there is another flag that is sometimes sighted on such public gatherings as Eid festivals, Pakistani/Indian Cricket Matches or political protests across Britain. 1 This is the official flag of the government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. 'Azad Kashmir' is a part of the divided state of Jammu Kashmir. Its future is yet to be determined along with rest of the state. As explained below in detail, Azad Kashmir is administered by Pakistan but it is not part of Pakistan like Punjab, Sindh, Pakhtoon Khuwa and Baluchistan. However, as a result of the invasion of India and Pakistan to capture Kashmir in October 1947 and the subsequent involvement of United Nations, Pakistan is responsible for the development and service provision including passports for the people of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan, another part of Kashmir that is not part of, but is controlled by, Pakistan. Under the same UN resolutions India is responsible for the Indian controlled part of Kashmir. In all parts of the divided Kashmir there are political movements of different intensity striving for greater rights and autonomy, self-rule and/or independence. The focus of this chapter, however, is primarily on Azad Kashmir, the home of nearly a million strong British Kashmiri community.
  • Terrorism Acts Uk

    Terrorism Acts Uk

    TERRORISM ACTS UK https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain The following is a list of terrorist incidents in Great Britain, including incidents where people were arrested under the terrorist laws and later released without charge, but excluding events in Northern Ireland – a part of the United Kingdom. Contents • Attacks involving violence or serious threat to life • 1970s • 1980s • 1990s • 2000s • 2010–present • Prevented, failed or aborted attacks • Arrests, detentions, and other incidents related to the Terrorism Acts • See also • References Attacks involving violence or serious threat to life 1970s § 1971, 12 January: Two bombs exploded at the house of government minister Robert Carr. This attack was one of 25 carried out by the Angry Brigade between August 1970 and August 1971. The Bomb Squad was established at Scotland Yard in January 1971 to target the group, and they were apprehended in August of that year.[1][2] § 1971, 31 October: A bomb exploded in the Post Office Tower in London causing extensive damage but no injuries. The "Kilburn Battalion" of the IRA claimed responsibility for the explosion.[3] § 1972, 22 February: The Official Irish Republican Army killed seven civilians in the Aldershot bombing. § 1972, 19 September: The group Black September posted a letter bomb to the Israeli embassy in London killing an Israeli diplomat.[4] § 1973: The Provisional IRA exploded a car bomb in the street outside the Old Bailey. A shard of glass is preserved as a reminder, embedded in the wall at the top of the main stairs. § 1973, 10 September: The Provisional IRA set off bombs at London's King's Cross Station and Euston Station injuring 21 people.[5] § 1974, 4 February: Eight soldiers and 4 civilians killed by the Provisional IRA in the M62 coach bombing.
  • Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

    Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

    University of Bath PHD Understanding Counter-Terrorism Policy and Practice in the UK since 9/11 Sabir, Rizwaan Sabir Award date: 2014 Awarding institution: University of Bath Link to publication Alternative formats If you require this document in an alternative format, please contact: [email protected] General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 26. Sep. 2021 Understanding Counter-Terrorism Policy and Practice in the UK since 9/11 Rizwaan Sabir A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Bath Department of Social and Policy Sciences March 2014 COPYRIGHT Attention is drawn to the fact that copyright of this thesis rests with the author. A copy of this thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that they must not copy it or use material from it except as permitted by law or with the consent of the author.
  • “No Judgement Was Made by Us”: How Two Innocent Men Came to Be Arrested on Terrorism Charges at the University of Notting

    “No Judgement Was Made by Us”: How Two Innocent Men Came to Be Arrested on Terrorism Charges at the University of Notting

    Radicalisation at universities or radicalisation by universities?: How a student¶VXVHRI a library book became a ³PDMRU,VODPLVWSORW´ ROD THORNTON School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom Email: [email protected] Paper prepared for the Critical Studies on Terrorism on Teaching About Terrorism panel at the British International Studies Association Conference, University of Manchester, April 2011 Abstract: In May 2008, on the campus of the University of Nottingham, two men of ethnic minority background - a student and an administrator - were arrested and held for six days under the Terrorism Act 2000. Their crime was to have in their possession three documents ± DOORIZKLFKZHUHLQIDFWDYDLODEOHIURPWKHLURZQXQLYHUVLW\¶VOLEUDU\ The police had made their arrests based on erroneous evidence provided by two men: the Registrar of the University of Nottingham and an academic within the institution. Subsequently, despite being made aware of the mistakes it had made, the university not only refused to apologise to the two arrested men but it also began to resort to defensive measures that attempted to discredit the names both of the two accused and of innocent university employees. Untruth piled on untruth until a point was reached where the Home Office itself IDUFLFDOO\FDPHWRDGYHUWLVHWKHFDVHDVµDPDMRU,VODPLVWSORW¶Many lessons can be learnt from what happened at the University of Nottingham. This incident is an indication of the way in which, in the United Kingdom of today, young Muslim men can EHFRPHVRHDVLO\WDUUHGZLWKWKHEUXVKRIEHLQJµWHUURULVWV¶.1 Keywords: academic freedom, BIS, discrimination, ethnic minority, freedom of speech, Home Office, Muslim, Nottingham, police, radicalisation, student, terrorism, Terrorism Act, university, University of Nottingham.
  • “No Judgement Was Made by Us”: How Two Innocent Men Came to Be Arrested on Terrorism Charges at the University of Notting

    “No Judgement Was Made by Us”: How Two Innocent Men Came to Be Arrested on Terrorism Charges at the University of Notting

    Radicalisation at universities or radicalisation by universities?: How a student‟s use of a library book became a “major Islamist plot” ROD THORNTON School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom Email: [email protected] Paper prepared for the Critical Studies on Terrorism on Teaching About Terrorism panel at the British International Studies Association Conference, University of Manchester, April 2011 Abstract: In May 2008, on the campus of the University of Nottingham, two men of ethnic minority background - a student and an administrator - were arrested and held for six days under the Terrorism Act 2000. Their crime was to have in their possession three documents – all of which were, in fact, available from their own university‟s library. The police had made their arrests based on erroneous evidence provided by two men: the Registrar of the University of Nottingham and an academic within the institution. Subsequently, despite being made aware of the mistakes it had made, the university not only refused to apologise to the two arrested men but it also began to resort to defensive measures that attempted to discredit the names both of the two accused and of innocent university employees. Untruth piled on untruth until a point was reached where the Home Office itself farcically came to advertise the case as „a major Islamist plot‟. Many lessons can be learnt from what happened at the University of Nottingham. This incident is an indication of the way in which, in the United Kingdom of today, young Muslim men can become so easily tarred with the brush of being „terrorists‟.1 Keywords: academic freedom, BIS, discrimination, ethnic minority, freedom of speech, Home Office, Muslim, Nottingham, police, radicalisation, student, terrorism, Terrorism Act, university, University of Nottingham.
  • Pulling Back the Curtain: an Examination of the English

    Pulling Back the Curtain: an Examination of the English

    PULLING BACK THE CURTAIN: AN EXAMINATION OF THE ENGLISH DEFENCE LEAGUE AND THEIR USE OF FACEBOOK Teddy Wayne Reynolds A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 2015 Full metadata for this item is available in Research@StAndrews:FullText at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/6927 This item is protected by original copyright This item is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence Pulling Back the Curtain: An Examination of the English Defence League and Their Use of Facebook Teddy Wayne Reynolds This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment for the degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 16 September, 2013 Pulling Back the Curtain: An Examination of the English Defence League and Their Use of Facebook Submitted by: Teddy Wayne Reynolds Declarations 1. Candidate’s declarations: I, Teddy Wayne Reynolds, hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 80,000 words in length, has been written by me, that it is the record of work carried out by me and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. I was admitted as a research student in September 2009 and as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in May 2010; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University of St Andrews between 2009 and 2013. ______________ ____________________________ Date Teddy Wayne Reynolds 2. Supervisor’s declaration: I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations appropriate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of St Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree.
  • GEP Annual Report for 2008

    GEP Annual Report for 2008

    GEP Annual Report to the Leverhulme Trust 8 0 0 2 2 Acknowledgements This report outlines research and outreach activities conducted by the Centre in the calendar year 2008. Support from the Leverhulme Trustees and core funding from the Leverhulme Trust under Programme Grant F/00 114/AM is warmly acknowledged. We would also like to thank Sir Richard Brook, the Trust’s Director, for his continued wise counsel and encouragement to move forward with new research initiatives and ventures. Finally, we greatly appreciate the advice offered by our Strategic Advisory Board Members and their involvement in the Centre’s activities through the year. i Leverhulme Centre for Research on Globalisation and Economic Policy (GEP): 2008 Annual Report to the Leverhulme Trust Contents A. Introduction 1 B. Globalising GEP – Malaysia and China 2 C. Research Programmes 3 D. Internal Research Fellows 7 E. Promoting Careers in the Economics Discipline 8 F. External Research Fellows and Visitors 9 G. Published Output in 200 8 10 H. Conferences and Seminars 11 I. Public Lectures 13 J. User Engagement and Outreach 15 K. GEP in the Media 16 L. The Year Ahead 17 Appendices: Publications Appendix 1 – GEP Research Papers in 2008 18 Appendix 2 – Published Output of Internal Research Fellows in 2008 20 Conferences and Seminars Appendix 3 – GEP Seventh Annual Postgraduate Conference 23 Appendix 4 – GEP Conferences for Sixth-Form Students 26 Appendix 5 – June 2008 GEP Conference Programme on Offshoring 27 Appendix 6 – Workshop on ‘Testing Trade Models with Labour Market

  • Law for Ethnographers

    MIO0010.1177/2059799117720607Methodological InnovationsElliott and Fleetwood 720607research-article2017 Article Methodological Innovations 2017, Vol. 10(1) 1-13 Law for ethnographers © The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799117720607DOI: 10.1177/2059799117720607 mio.sagepub.com Tracey Elliott1 and Jennifer Fleetwood2 Abstract Despite a long history of ethnographic research on crime, ethnographers have shied away from examining the law as it relates to being present at, witnessing and recording illegal activity. However, knowledge of the law is an essential tool for researchers and the future of ethnographic research on crime. This article reviews the main relevant legal statutes in England and Wales and considers their relevance for contemporary ethnographic research. We report that researchers have no legal responsibility to report criminal activity (with some exceptions). The circumstances under which legal action could be taken to seize research data are specific and limited, and respondent’s privacy is subject to considerable legal protection. Our review gives considerable reason to be optimistic about the future of ethnographic research. Keywords law, ethnography, confidentiality Introduction Ethnographers of crime and deviance have long trod the thin for researchers to be granted legal privileges to guarantee line between observing and participating in criminal activi- respondents’ confidentiality, as occurs for government-funded ties, so it is somewhat surprising
  • Strategic Review and Financial Statements 2020 Strategic Review and Financial Statements 2020 Council Membership 1 August 2019 to 31 July 2020 Contents

    Strategic Review and Financial Statements 2020 Strategic Review and Financial Statements 2020 Council Membership 1 August 2019 to 31 July 2020 Contents

    Strategic review and financial statements 2020 Strategic review and financial statements 2020 Council membership 1 August 2019 to 31 July 2020 Contents The Council is the University’s governing body and, among other matters, it is responsible for overseeing the administration and management of the affairs of the University and is required to present audited Council membership 2 financial statements for each financial year. Foreword by the Vice-Chancellor 4 Chair of Council External members appointed Other senior officers Strategic review 6 and Pro-Chancellor by the Council of the University John Mills (until 31 December 2019) Simon Amess Chancellor Governance 14 Sir Keith O’Nions Vicky Bailey Baroness Young of Hornsey OBE (from 1 January 2020) Lynette Eastman Registrar Financial review 20 Dr Paul Greatrix Vice-Chair of Council Sonya Leydecker (Secretary to Council) Nora Senior Independent auditor’s report 28 Sherry Madera Pro-Vice-Chancellors Professor Graham Kendall Members ex-Officio Carolyn Morgan Statement of principal accounting policies 31 Pro-Chancellor Trevor Moss Professor Nick Miles OBE Dr Hamid Mughal OBE Richard Newsome Professor Sarah Sharples Financial statements 34 President and Vice-Chancellor Sir Keith O’Nions Professor Robert Mokaya Professor Shearer West (until 31 December 2019) Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellors Notes to the financial statements 40 Provost and Deputy David Tilly Professor John Atherton Vice-Chancellor Professor Jeremy Gregory Professor Andy Long Appointed by the Professor Todd Landman Treasurer Students’
  • Nottingham City Market Report

    Nottingham City Market Report

    NOTTINGHAM CITY MARKET REPORT STUDENT PROPERTY RESEARCH | 2019 / 20 Q2 2020 Connecting people & property, perfectly. NOTTINGHAM CITY MARKET REPORT - 1 - NOTTINGHAM CITY MARKET REPORT INTRODUCTION This City Market Report outlines the key metrics associated with purpose built student accommodation in Nottingham. The report positions the city in the context of the wider UK market and illustrates key comparators. The report illustrates the key locations for purpose built student accommodation and analyses the demand and supply dynamics in Nottingham, with a focus on Pricing, Accommodation types and future supply of student beds. CONTENTS UK Student Populations 3 Higher Education Institutions 4 Purpose Built Student Accommodation 5 Pricing 6 Development Pipeline 7 Appendix I – University Locations and PBSA Locations 8 Appendix II – Bed Numbers and Pricing 9 Appendix III – Development Pipeline 11 Knight Frank Student Team 12 NOTTINGHAM SUMMARY Close to Derby, Loughborough 2 hours by train to London 2 Higher Education Institutions 18% of the city population are students 59,397 full time students 15% Growth since 2013/14 19% of student population are international 55% Students unable to access PBSA - 2 - NOTTINGHAM CITY MARKET REPORT UK STUDENT POPULATIO NS A map of key purpose built student accommodation markets in the UK. University campuses and purpose built student accommodation locations. - 3 - NOTTINGHAM CITY MARKET REPORT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIO NS University performance Nottingham student growth Nottingham student growth international
  • Financial Statements for the Year to 31 July 2016

    Financial Statements for the Year to 31 July 2016

    Financial Statements for the year to 31 July 2016 Financial Statements for the year to 31 July 2016 Contents Vice-Chancellor’s Welcome 3 – 4 Strategy Review 5 – 13 Treasurer's Report 14 – 27 Strategy and Risk 28 – 29 Public Benefit Statement 30 - 36 Governance 37 - 44 Report of the Independent Auditor 45 Statement of Principal Accounting Policies 46 - 50 Financial Statements 51 – 54 Notes to the Accounts 55 – 69 The University of Nottingham Financial Statements for the year ended 31 July 2016 Page | 1 COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP (1 August 2015 to 31 July 2016) President of Council and Pro-Chancellor: John Mills Vice-President of Council: Dame Elizabeth Fradd Members ex-Officio Pro-Chancellor: Dr Hamid Mughal OBE The Vice-Chancellor: Professor Sir David Greenaway Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Professor Karen Cox The Treasurer: Stephen Walton Pro-Vice-Chancellors: Professor Sarah O’Hara Professor Hai-Sui Yu Members of Staff Professor Tony Avery [from 18 November 2015] Professor Neil Crout Dr Rachel Gomes Professor Christine Hall Dr Gabriele Neher External members appointed by the Council Baroness Brenda Dean John Finch Dame Asha Khemka Trevor Moss [from 1 October 2015] Jeff Randall David Ross John Saunders David Tilly [from 1 February 2016] Neil Watkinson Louise Wilson Appointed by the Union of Students From 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 Angharad Smith (President) Daniel Rattigan (Education Officer) From 1 July 2016 Ismail Sadurdeen(President) Beth Massey(Education Officer) Other Senior Officers The Chancellor: Sir Andrew Witty The Registrar: Dr Paul Greatrix