The Institute
About the Institute
Our purpose, editorial approach and institutional authorship.
The Alderwick Institute is a research publication examining political power, influence and public accountability within Australian public life.
We ask how official narratives hold up against evidence, whose interests receive a hearing, and how access and advocacy may shape public decisions. Our articles make arguments. They also give readers the sources and qualifications needed to challenge those arguments.
Research and editorial approach
Our research starts with a question and the available evidence. We examine legislation, judgments, parliamentary proceedings, ministerial diaries, disclosure registers and attributable public statements. Journalism and advocacy publications provide context and further leads, with claims assessed against the underlying records wherever available.
We distinguish what a document establishes from the interpretation we draw from it. A meeting can establish access; an acknowledged request can establish input. Explaining how either shaped a decision requires further evidence. We test our arguments against contrary material, competing explanations and instances where advocacy failed or government took a different course.
AI tools assist with finding and organising material, comparing documents, drafting and reviewing arguments. Their outputs are working material that requires checking. Quotations and factual claims are checked against cited sources, while source notes record qualifications and unresolved verification limits. Human editorial judgement determines the final argument, wording and decision to publish.
Articles appear under the institutional byline The Alderwick Institute. The publisher retains responsibility for their content. Original authors, organisations and photographers receive credit where their work is cited or used.
Our name does not imply university affiliation or official accreditation.
Our articles make arguments and give readers the evidence needed to challenge them. Readers and people discussed in the research can submit contrary evidence, identify errors or provide a response through [email protected]. Our methodology and corrections policy explain how we assess claims and address substantive errors.
Judge our work by whether its sources support its claims, its reasoning accounts for contrary evidence, and it responds fairly when challenged.
Open to scrutiny
Readers and people discussed in our research can supply contrary evidence, identify errors or submit a response. Our methodology explains the distinctions behind our reporting; our corrections policy explains how to challenge it.