Dr Jarrod Gilbert at the launch of his book The History of Gangs in New Zealand.

Police are changing their policy on academic research after a week in which they were accused of posing a threat to academic freedom.

"What's happened in the past week has caused us to really have a look at our policy," Police Commissioner Mike Bush said on Saturday.

READ MORE:

* Call for police to scrap 'censoring' contracts after researcher Dr Jarrod Gilbert banned

* 'Our job is not to censor. We're not serving the political elite, business or corporations'

"It was possibly fit for purpose at one stage. It's not fit for purpose now, we work in a dynamic environment.

"So that's being reviewed as we speak, both the policy and the decision that was made in respect of Dr Jarrod Gilbert, and I'm sure you'll hear more about our review of that next week," Bush told TV3's The Nation.

Gilbert spoke out during the week about "sinister" police research contracts.

He said he had been deemed "unfit to conduct research" and banned from accessing basic police data owing to his "association with gangs".

Gilbert spent a decade researching gangs for his book, Patched: the history of gangs in New Zealand. The book was partly based on research but also on ingratiating himself with criminals.

His only association with gangs was for research and he had not done anything he could be charged for, he said.

Numerous times when he was with gang members in a car that was pulled over, his name and photograph - as well as the names and photographs of the gang members - were taken, but he had nothing to hide.

"I will quite happily make my file public but they won't give it to me," Gilbert said.

After requesting an explanation for the ban from police, he received only heavily redacted documents.

His troubles with authorities began when he was leading a research team working for a large government agency wanting to investigate alcohol-related harms.

Basic crime data about where crimes were committed was withheld from the researchers unless they signed a "research contract" which stipulated a draft report be provided to police.

If the results were deemed to be "negative" then police would seek to "improve its outcomes".

By not agreeing, the team was threatened with being "blacklisted" from any further police resources.

In going public with the issue Gilbert hoped to raise awareness of the threat police were posing to academic freedom.

In The Nation interview it was suggested to Bush the aim of the contracts was to keep a lid on things that may be perceived as negative for the police.

"That's why we will be changing the wording of that policy and what it's about because the frustrating thing is it's the opposite that's true in terms of where we're at at the moment," Bush said.

"We're wanting to build great relationships with academia because we are determined to be a very evidence-based police service."

He also said the intent of the present policy was to keep people's information private.

Responding to Bush's comments, Gilbert said he was feeling extremely optimistic but he would have to wait and see given the unsatisfactory dealings he had been having with police.

The seemingly satisfactory outcome now had only come about because the issue had been publicised, Gilbert said.

"As soon as this broke in the media ... I got a phone call from the police. It would have been lovely to have that months ago when I was desperately trying to get information out of them to find out why they had made this decision."

He assumed police considered him to be anti-police but that was "absolute nonsense".

"From time to time the police, like any institution will require criticism, and from time to time I have criticised them. That's my job," Gilbert said.

For the most part he considered the police in this country to be "extremely good".

"But they have strayed so far from what the public would deem acceptable in this instance that it's mind blowing."

Gilbert also described as an "absurdity beyond belief" a statement from Police Minister Michael Woodhouse that the case was an "operational matter".

"If a minister of police can't see that this has wider implications, then he's not fit to be a minister."