1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
Dye (1995, ix): "a combination of rational planning, incrementalism, competition between
groups, elite preferences, systematic forces, public choice, political processes, and
institutional influences" (see p. 18); (p. 2) "Public policy is whatever governments choose to
do or not do, i.e., government action and inaction; (pp. 3-4) finding a "proper" definition of
public policy has "proved futile"
Burger (1993, p. 7), citing Jenkins (1978): "'a set of interrelated decisions taken by a political
actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them
within a specified situation where these decisions should, in principle, be within the power of
these actors to achieve'." [He critiques this definition as inadequate]
Harold Lasswell: political science demands a policy orientation -- i.e., one must ask "what is
to be done, and how is it to be done? What are the effects of doing so?"
Braman (2006, p. 66): traditionally the word policy has been reserved for public sector
decisions.
Grumm, John G., & Wasby, Stephen L. (1981). The analysis of policy impact. Lexington, MA:
D.C. Heath and Company. (ix): "such an orientation [noted by Lasswell] implies treating
policy as an independent variable as well as a dependent variable, as a cause as well as a
consequence."
Nakamura & Smallwood (1980, p. 31), cited in Rist (1994, p. 548): "'A policy can be thought of
as a set of instructions from policy makers to policy implementers [sic] that spell out both
goals and the means for achieving those goals'." Rist (1994, p. 550): "Policies imply theories.
Whether stated explicitly or not policies point to a chain of causation between initial
conditions and future consequences."
Jones, Charles O. (1984). An introduction to the study of public policy (3rd ed.). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. (p. 26) Citing Heinz Eulau and Kenneth Prewitt: "a
'standing decision' characterized by behavioral consistency and repetitiveness on the part of
both those who make it and those who abide by it."
Majchrzak (1984, p.12): [by implication] policies are "pragmatic, action-oriented" solutions to
fundamental social problems.
Considine, Mark. (1994). Public policy: A critical approach. South Melbourne, Australia:
Macmillan. (pp. 1-2): "policy emerges from identifiable patterns of interdependence between
[sic] key social actors such as parties, corporations, unions, professions, and citizens. . . .
Public policy is one of the central processes through which our communities respond to
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
major social, economic and environmental problems." (p. 3) "policy, then, may be expressed
as any or all of these three things: clarifications of public values and intentions; commitments
of money and services; or granting of rights and entitlements."
(p. 3) "A public policy is an action which employs governmental authority to commit
resources in support of a preferred value."
But he challenges this definition as instrumental and antisocial, because it says little about
"the origin and consequences of policy." In his critical approach (p. 4), "policy is the
continuing work done by groups of policy actors who use available public institutions to
articulate and express the things they value."
Considine expands his definition further (p. 254): "solutions [to public problems] must come
through continuing, institutional mechanisms that link values, authority and resources. . . . a
form of structured innovation in which there is:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(p. 269): "Policy making, when considered as a system of innovation among linked or
interdependent actors, becomes a learning and regulating web based upon continuous
exchanges of information and skill." (p. 270): "The policy-as-learning perspective is therefore
an inevitably shared experience in which actors require continuing opportunities to develop
joint strategies."
Overman & Cahill (1990, p. 804): "policy formulation is the process working within a
normative structure to resolve value conflicts."
Lindblom & Woodhouse (1993, p. 7) both a result of rational discussion and political forces;
(p. 11) making policy is "a complexly interactive process without beginning or end," but (p.
122) there is no effective competition of ideas, hegemony and inertia obtain; (p. 127)
government "solutions for social problems," but there are "grave deficiencies in social
problem solving . . . due to deep and enduring features of political-economic processes" (p.
141).
Hogwood & Gunn (1984, pp. 13-19): policy is a label for a field of activity, an expression of
general purpose or desired state of affairs, specific proposals, decisions of government,
formal authorization, a programme, output, outcome, a theory or model, and process.
They go on (pp. 19-24) to define public policy, reflecting the various ways in which the term is
used and intended by others, in multiple ways: policy is to be distinguished from "decision,"
policy is less readily distinguishable from "administration," policy involves behaviour as well
as intentions, policy involves inaction as well as action, policies have outcomes which may or
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
may not have been foreseen, policy is "a purposive course of action but purposes may be
defined retrospectively," policy arises from a process over time, policy involves intra- and
inter-organizational relationships, public policy involves a key but not exclusive role for
public agencies, and policy is subjectively [sic] defined.
Guba (1984, p. 70) states unequivocally that [i]t is nonsense to ask the question What is the
real definition of policy? [emphasis in the original]. He adds (pp. 63-65): "one can safely
conclude that the term policy is not defined in any uniform way; indeed the term is rarely
defined at all. He offers eight uses of the term:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
And he continues that the particular definition assumed by the policy analyst determines
the kinds of policy questions that are asked, . . . data that are collected, the sources of data . . .,
the methodology . . . used, and . . . the policy products that emerge. And reminds us that
[f]rom the perspective of the analyst some definitions will always be better than others (p.
70).
Eulau & Prewitt (1973, p. 465) identify the following as components of public policy:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
==================================================
A useful integrating concept of policy for our purposes:
Selecting goals
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
For most of our purposes this semester, we can think of public policy as:
(1) the commitment of public resources
(2) to certain courses of action
(3) to achieve certain goals
(4) in the context of differential power of all kinds.
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
Hayes (1985) -- a more conceptual approach: information policy is "the basis for societal and
institutional decisions concerning the allocation of resources to the acquisition, processing,
distribution and use of information"
Mason (1983) -- linked to the information lifecycle (p. 1 of Syllabus); information policy is "a
set of interrelated laws and policies concerned with the creation, production, collection,
management, distribution and retrieval of information. Their significance lies in the fact that
they profoundly affect the manner in which an individual in society , indeed a society itself,
makes political, economic and social choices."
Burger (1993) -- information policy is (p. 6) "the societal mechanisms used to control
information, and the societal effects of applying these mechanisms"; (p. 27) "the tool by which
this control [of information of various kinds] is maintained or lost, by which power is shared
or retained"; (65) an "attempt to solve information control problems." Burger, along with
others, maintains that information policy is cultural policy in that it deals with people's
behavior and values.
Hernon & McClure (1991) -- (pp. 3-4) information policy is "a field encompassing information
science and public policy, [information policy] treats information as both a commodity
adhering to the economic theory of property rights and a national resource to be collected,
protected, shared, manipulated, and managed"; (p. 4) information policy "also embraces
access to, and use of, information."
Yurow & Shaw/NTIA (1981, vi) -- information policy concerns "policies dealing with the flow
of information and with the controls which are sometimes necessary to direct that flow"
Zimmerman (in Yurow & Shaw, 1981, iv): "there is no general definition of the term
'information policy.'"
Trauth (1986) -- a systems theoretic approach; (p. 41) information policy is "the set of activities
currently in existence, which aim to achieve certain goals in the realm of information
processing and communication"; (p. 41) it is also "implicit in nature of consisting of a
collection of laws, precedents, expectations, and societal norms which are generally
autonomous and have emanated from diverse sources."
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
Andersen and Dawes (1991) -- "By public information policies we mean those strategies that
allow us to use information well and adapt government organizations and information
systems to a rapidly changing environment." [a public administration, "internal" view]
Heim (1986, p. 21): policies aimed at the "array of problematic dilemmas that surround
knowledge generation, as well as information access, dissemination, and storage at state,
national, and international levels of jurisdiction."
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
Overman & Kahill (1990) -- (p. 803) citing Weingarten (1989), "the set of all public laws,
regulations, and policies that encourage, discourage, or regulate the creation, use, storage,
and communication of information." (p. 805): "The analysis of information policy documents
produces a list of seven primary information policy values:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Conflict and convergence over these core values establishes the normative structure of policy
conversations about national information policy design." [YES?/NO?]; (p. 813) "information
policy appears to belong to a class of policy problems, such as energy policy, industrial policy,
or welfare policy, that defy easy analysis or solution. These are policy problems in which,
'We know that objectives invariably be distinguished by three outstanding qualities: they are
multiple, conflicting, and vague. They mirror . . . the complexity and ambivalence of human
social behavior'." (citing Wildavsky, 1979).
Bennett (1992) -- contrasts two views; on the one hand, culture is both the instrument and
object of government. On the other hand, of considerable interest to us, (p. 26) culture is a
"historically specific set of institutionally embedded relations of government in which the
forms of thought and conduct of extended populations are targeted for transformation." He
also encourages us to (p. 27), "think of culture as a historically produced surface of social
regulation." His perspective is important when we consider the relationship among power,
culture, and information.
Rowlands (1996) -- information policy exists at two levels: (1) "that which is explicit and
recorded in documentary form" and (2) "that which is expressed implicitly in the form of
habits, received wisdoms, unwritten codes of behaviour, expectations and societal norms" (p.
20). Information policy is complex, dynamic, abstract, and full of interacting conflicts and
stakeholders; thus, citing Braman, to study information policy, we need theoretical (and
methodological) pluralism, beyond disciplinary and technology-imposed limitations. Valuecritical approaches are especially needed.
Browne (1997a) (p. 261) "How information policy is defined or its historical origins are . . .
not agreed upon." She says that we must move beyond approaches limited by topic,
discipline, and traditional areas of responsibility to focus on values and sophisticated
methods. She relies on a model of the information transfer process (see next page) to develop
what she calls the conceptual boundaries of information policy. We can use the model while
recognizing its weaknesses. In (1997b, p. 343) Browne leads us through an analysis of the
characteristics of positivism, post-positivism, critical theory, and constructivism and how that
analysis can inform the study of information policy.
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
Braman (1990) (pp. 47 and 49-50) information policy is a new industry area that is
particularly prone to industry capture in the U.S. because of the strong influence of the
private sector. There is considerable confusion of goals and orientation among American
policymakers especially vis--vis normative questions, in part because of many and
conflicting principles (pp. 55 and 62).
Braman (2006) (p. 70) information policy is the domain of policy for information,
communication, and culture. Further (xvii-xviii) information policy is law and policy for
information creation, processing [sic], flows [sic], and use . . . . [it] fundamentally shapes the
conditions within which we undertake all other political, social, cultural, and economic
activity [its constitutive character]. She later adds that information policy is the
proprioceptive organ of the nation-state, the means by which it senses itself (p. 4).
Braman, like others, notes that information policy is characterized by three elements:
1.
2.
3.
There are an unusually large number of players, types of players, and decision-making
venues involved in the making of information policy (p.66).
There is a great deal of [c]onfusion about just what is and what is not information
policy that has existed for decades (p. 67).
Not everything that falls within the domain of information policy is labeled as such (p.
63).
One of Bramans useful summarizing statements is that information policy researchers face a
major intellectual challenge in building bridges between [sic] the definitional approaches
necessary at different stages of the policy-making process (p. 77). These definitional
approaches include (pp. 67-73):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
WHY STUDY PUBLIC POLICY? (Dye, 1995, 8th ed., pp. 4-6)
1.
2.
For problem solving and professional reasons -- understanding the causes and consequences
of policy decisions permits us to apply social science knowledge to the solution of practical
problems.
3.
For political purposes and to make policy recommendations -- to ensure that the nation
adopts the "right" policies to achieve the "right" goals.
2.
3.
As students of public policy, we can interrelate the questions in a model of the policy system.
=======================================================================
But we can consider an alternative set of reasons for doing policy analysis as suggested by
Lindblom & Woodhouse (1993):
To increase informed participation in social decision making beyond social elites (p. 137)
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
10
From Theodoulou, Stella Z., & Kahn, Matthew A. (Eds.) (1995). Public policy: The essential
readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Theodoulou (1995a) on the contemporary language of public policy: "The student of policy
making is faced not only with a diversity of theoretical problems but also, at times, rival
vocabularies and specialist terminologies." (p. 1)
She identifies elements of a "less restrictive meaning" of public policy, a composite of other
authors' work:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
We should distinguish between what governments intend to do and what they do.
Study should include consideration of informal actors.
Public policy is not limited to formal instruments like orders and regulations.
"[A]n intentional course of action with an accomplished goal as its objective."
"[A]n ongoing process: it involves . . . the decision to enact a law . . . [and] the subsequent
actions of implementation, enforcement, and evaluation."
Theodoulou (1995b) on how public policy is made: some students of public policy are trying
to go beyond the stages of the stage framework (problem recognition and issue identification,
agenda setting, policy formulation, policy adoption, policy implementation, and policy
analysis and evaluation) that has dominated policy research for decades. (pp. 86-87)
Context helps determine policy, and context includes (1) the history of past policies; (2)
"cultural, demographic, economic, social, and ideological factors"; (3) the institutional context;
and (4) ideological conflict between "liberals and conservatives over the nature of
governmental action" (pp. 91-92)
"Conditions come to be defined as problems, and have a better chance of rising on the
agenda, when we come to believe that we should do something to change them." (p. 106)
Agenda setting is a "garbage can," combining streams of problems, politics, and other
elements.
Policy ideas are combined and recombined over years by "policy communities" of
specialists and decision makers.
Policy entrepreneurs link ideas to decision makers -- these entrepreneurs expend their
own resources to promote ideas.
There are "policy windows" which are structural opportunities for ideas to become part
of the agenda.
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
11
2.
3.
"[T]ypically the administrator chooses -- and must choose -- directly among policies in
which . . . values are combined in different ways. He cannot first clarify his {sic] values
and then choose among policies." (p. 117)
Usually there is a great deal of disagreement among all parties about values and
objectives, as well as the relative merits of policy alternatives.
"Policy is not made once and for all; it is made and re-made endlessly. policy-making is a
process of successive approximation to some desired objective in which what is desired
itself continues to change under reconsideration." (p. 123)
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
12
I, like many others who study public policy, do not accept this dichotomy.
Majchrzak has several other assertions that are valuable for us to consider:
"Policy research is more than simply following a set of activities. . . . 'a mixture of science,
craftlore, and art.'" (p. 11)
"Policy research . . . is defined as the process of conducting research on, or analysis of, a
fundamental social problem in order to provide policymakers with pragmatic, actionoriented recommendations for alleviating the problem." (p. 12)
"policy research has both a high action orientation and a concern for fundamental social
problems." (p. 13)
"policy research efforts study fundamental social problems in an attempt to create pragmatic
courses of action for ameliorating those problems. No other type of research process has
quite the same focus or action orientation." (p. 14)
"the context of doing policy research consists of competing inputs, complex problems, and
seemingly irrational decisionmaking styles." (p. 15)
"Since the objective of policy research is to provide policymakers with useful
recommendations, policy studies tend to focus primarily on malleable variables." (p. 50)
She quotes Bernard Berelson's (1976) five criteria for determining if research questions are
likely to "advance" public policy (p. 52):
(1) The research question should address an important aspect of the social problem;
(2) The research question should be do-able that is, feasible given expected study
constraints;
(3) The research question should be timely by providing information that will be useful for
current and future decisionmaking;
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
13
(4) The research question should provide a synthesis of diverse viewpoints so that the
results represent an integration to the field, rather than simply an addition
(5) The research question should exhibit policy responsiveness by addressing issues in a
manner that will help policymakers act on the social problem.
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
14
Another useful summary for considering what the study of public policy entails may be to
consider such study as:
Action-oriented
Concerned with identifiable social issues, conflicts, and questions [avoiding locution of
"social problems" and resulting technicist approach to their "solution"]
Value-laden
Dependent on the academic discipline of the researcher/analyst and its assumptions about:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
Communication
Economics
Political HistoryPolitical Science
Rhetoric & Comp
Ethnic Studies
Sociology
Area Studies
MIS
Organizational Studies.
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
15
(Doty, 1998; some from House, 1982; Ballard et al., 1981; and Majchrzak, 1984)
But we get a warning from Lindblom and Woodhouse (1993, pp. 5-10) that there are four major
influences on policymaking and policy analysis that are often ignored in positivistic, "linear"
models of policy making:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Therefore, the analyst must "challenge fundamental features of politics, economics, and culture"
(p. 136). Do you agree or disagree? Why?
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
16
Drawn largely from Ballard et al. (1981) on social science and social policy; be a bit wary of their
unreflective use of the problem locution. The social scientist studying public policy must be a:
1.
Substantive expert -- "become familiar with the policy system that influences the particular
problem at hand" (p. 181), including competing definitions of the problem, its historical
development, stakeholders, and its social and economic implications
2.
3.
4.
Change agent -- "Disagreement exists regarding whether or how actively researchers should
pursue this role and how certain important ethical questions that become apparent should be
resolved." (p. 184)
Such Q's arise as the analyst and the user of the analysis get closer. These concerns center on
determining the course of the research, organizational resistance to "bad news," "pathology of
trust" (despite a close working relationship with study sponsors, maintaining high standards
for analysis), and misused information.
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
17
These values give us insight into the "normative structure of information policy" [what does
"normative" mean? what is its antonym?] (adapted from Overman and Cahill, 1990, Table 2).
Perspective
V
a
l
u
e
s
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
Restrictive
Distributive
Usefulness
Cost and Benefit
Secrecy and Security
Ownership
Privacy (protection)
Access
Freedom
Privacy (access)
Openness
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
18
As noted in your readings and we have already discussed in class, there are many critiques of the
traditional, process-oriented, problem-centric approach to policy studies. At the same time,
however, we need to recognize the strengths of these models and appreciate their overarching
influence in the various policy literatures. Critical, value-sensitive perspectives are slowly but
surely undermining the steps-in-the-policy-process-to-solve-social-problems approach, but the
traditional perspective continues to have enormous influence, especially implicitly. Here are
some examples of that traditional point of view. Also see Majchrzak (1984).
Jones, Charles O. (1984). An introduction to the study of public policy (3rd ed.). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
pp. 27-28
1.
Perception/definition
2.
Aggregation
3.
Organization
4.
Representation
5.
Agenda setting
6.
Formulation
7.
Legitimation
8.
Budgeting
9.
Implementation
10. Evaluation
What adjustments have been made[,] and how did they come
about?
1.
Problem recognition
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
19
2.
Policy adoption
3.
Policy implementation
4.
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
20
REFERENCES
Andersen, David F., & Dawes, Sharon S. (1991). Government information management: A primer
and casebook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ballard, Steven C., Brosz, Allyn R., & Parker, Larry B. (1981). Social science and social policy:
Roles of the applied researcher. In John G. Grumm & Stephen L. Wasby (Eds.), The analysis of
policy impact (pp. 179-188). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co.
Bennett, Tony. (1992). Putting policy into cultural studies. In Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson,
& Paula Treicher (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 23-37). New York: Routledge.
Braman, Sandra. (1990). The unique characteristics of information policy and their U.S.
consequences. In Virgil L.P. Blake & Renee Tjoumas (eds.), Information literacies for the twenty-first
century (pp. 47-77). Boston: G.K. Hall.
Braman, Sandra. (2006). Change of state: Information, policy, and power. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Browne, Mairad. (1997a). The field of information policy: 1. Fundamental concepts. Journal of
Information Science, 23(4), 261-275.
Browne, Mairad. (1997b). The field of information policy: 2. Redefining the boundaries and
methodologies. Journal of Information Science, 23(5), 339-351.
Burger, Robert H. (1993). Information policy: A framework for evaluation and policy research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chartrand, Robert. (1986). Legislating information policy. Bulletin of the American Society for
Information Science, 12(5), 10.
Considine, Mark. (1994). Public policy: A critical approach. South Melbourne, Australia:
Macmillan.
Doty, Philip. (1998). Why study information policy? Journal of Education for Library and
Information Science, 39(1), 58-64.
Dye, Thomas R. (1995). Understanding public policy (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Eulau, Heinz, & Prewitt, Kenneth. (1973). Labyrinths of democracy. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Grumm, John G., & Wasby, Stephen L. (1981). The analysis of policy impact. Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath.
Guba, Egon G. (1984). The effects of definitions of policy on the nature and outcomes of policy
analysis. Educational Leadership, 42(2), 63-70.
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
21
Hayes, Robert M. (Ed.). (1985). Introduction. Libraries and the information economy of California (pp.
1-49). Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles.
Heim, Kathleen. (1986). National information policy and a mandate for oversight by the
information professions. Government Publications Review, 13(1), 21-37.
Hernon, Peter, & McClure, Charles R. (1991). United States information policies. In Wendy
Schipper & M. Cunningham (Eds.), National and international information policies (pp. 3-48).
Philadelphia, PA: National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services.
Hogwood, B.W., & Gunn, L.A. (1984). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
House, Peter W. (1982). The art of public policy analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jones, Charles O. (1984). An introduction to the study of public policy (3rd ed.). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Kingdon, John W. (1995). Agenda setting. In Stella Z. Theodoulou & Matthew A. Cahn (Eds.),
Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 105-113). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lasswell, Harold. (1951). The policy orientation. In Daniel Lernet & Harold Lasswell (Eds.), The
policy sciences (pp. 3-15). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lindblom, Charles E. (1995). The science of muddling through. In Stella Z. Theodoulou &
Matthew A. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 113-127). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall. (Original work published 1959)
Lindblom, Charles E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. In Democracy and the market system
(pp. 237-259). Oslo: Scandinavian Press.
Lindblom, Charles E., & Woodhouse, Edward J. (1993). The policy-making process (3rd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Majchrzak, Ann. (1984). Methods for policy research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mason, Marilyn Gell. (1983). The federal role in library and information services. White Plains, NY:
Knowledge Industry Publications.
Nakamura, R.T., & Smallwood, F. (1980). The politics of policy implementation. New York: St.
Martins.
Overman, E. Sam, & Cahill, Anthony G. (1990). Information policy: A study of values in the
policy process. Policy Studies Review, 9(4), 803-818.
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
22
Rist, Ray C. (1994). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In Norman K.
Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 545-557). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Rowlands, Ian. (1996). Understanding information policy: Concepts, frameworks and research
tools. Journal of Information Science, 22(1), 13-25.
Theodoulou, Stella Z. (1995a). The contemporary language of public policy: A starting point. In
Stella Z. Theodoulou & Matthew A. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 1-9).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Theodoulou, Stella Z. (1995b). How public policy is made. In Stella Z. Theodoulou & Matthew
A. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (pp. 86-96). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Theodoulou, Stella Z., & Cahn, Matthew A. (Eds.). (1995). Public policy: The essential readings.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Trauth, Eileen M. (1986). An integrative approach to information policy research.
Telecommunications Policy, 10(1), 41-50.
Weingarten, F. W. (1989). Federal information policy development: The Congressional
perspective. In Charles R. McClure, Peter Hernon, & Harold Relyea (Eds.), United States
government information policies: Views and perspectives (pp. 77-99). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wildavsky, Aaron. (1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston:
Little, Brown.
Yurow, Jane H., Shaw, Helen A. (1981). Issues in information policy. Washington, DC: National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
INF 390N.1
Federal Information Policy
Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas - Austin
23