Now here’s a starter for five, or six. I’m currently working on a data audit for a large organisation. This involves interviewing a range of people about ‘what is’ in their organisation - rather than ‘what should be’.

I take extensive notes. I have to gain people’s trust and they have to tell me what they really do in their jobs, rather than what they should do.

I now have two large hardback notebooks full of quotes and observations. But when I come to write some of the notes up I find myself asking - should I write this? what if someone asks for all the documentation under FOI?

Its a strange dynamic - could FOI actually stifle debate because people become reluctant to say things because they are then recorded as if they are a permanent record for all time?

Isn’t real democracy about debate? and people changing their views and ideas over time as a result of discourse? What then are the parameters of the discourse?

I’m finding the possibility of FOI acting as a self censor in certain circumstances. Will this lead to a very sterile written discourse instead of a dynamic one?

Yes, we want accountability - but we also need hard arguement - we need people to be able to say what they really feel and mean about i) IT procurement ii) what they really think about the organisations they work ( in order to improve certain things)

I’ve found myself self-censoring because of FOI - is that the spirit of what is intended?