Governing Access: Freedom of Information, Knowledge Politics, and the Limits of Transparency in Public Health Research

Introduction Freedom of Information (FOI) laws are presented as mechanisms of transparency and democratic accountability, yet their operation as tools of public health research remains under-examined. This study examines how FOI regimes shape, rather than simply enable, researchers’ access to institutional knowledge across Nigeria, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US). Theory Drawing on governmentality and epistemic injustice, FOI is conceptualized as a site of knowledge governance through which legal exclusions, commercial secrecy, bureaucratic discretion, and institutional practices determine what can become knowable, by whom, and under what conditions. Method The study uses reflexive comparative analysis of more than 250 FOI requests submitted by the author and collaborators across three public health research projects concerning violence interventions. Patterns of disclosure, non-response, delay, exemption, and institutional fragmentation were examined across jurisdictions. Results Formal rights to information frequently diverged from practical access. In Nigeria, institutional non-compliance and infrastructural dysfunction substantially restricted disclosure. In the UK, privatized service delivery placed important information beyond effective FOI scrutiny. In the US, procedural delays and fragmented institutional responsibility impeded timely and systematic access. These mechanisms differently constrained the evidence available for evaluating public health interventions. Discussion FOI is therefore not a neutral research instrument but part of the institutional architecture governing knowledge production. Comparative differences nevertheless produced a common effect: epistemic inequalities in researchers’ capacity to scrutinize public institutions. Public health research should treat transparency regimes as methodological conditions requiring critical evaluation, while reforms should address enforcement, outsourcing, delay, and fragmentation.