Government Information

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

INF 382M

Unique Number 25550

Dr. Philip Doty School of Information University of Texas at Austin

Fall 2004

Class time: Monday 9:00 AM – 12:00 N

Place: SZB 468

Office: SZB 570

Office hrs: MON 1:00 - 2:00 PM

By appointment other times

Telephone: 512.471.3746 (direct line) 512.471.3821 (main iSchool office)

Internet: [email protected] http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~pdoty/index.htm

Class URL: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~i382Mpd

TA: Cheryl Beaver [email protected]

Office hours TBA

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction to the course 3

Student collaboration 4

Expectations of students’ performance 5

Analysis in reading, writing, and presenting 6

Standards for written work 7

Editing conventions 11

Grading 12

Texts and other tools 13

List of assignments 14

Outline of course 15

Schedule 17

Assignments 21

Suggestions for writing policy analysis 24

References 27

Selected additional sources 30

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 2 INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE

INF 382M, Government Information, examines sources, services, and policies related to government information at multiple levels. The course’s emphasis is on U.S. federal information, with a secondary emphasis on state information, especially in Texas, and a lesser emphasis on international and local government information.

The course has no prerequisites, and it is offered to graduate students across the university.

Students who complete this course successfully will be prepared for professional activities such as policy research and analysis in public and private enterprises, provision of information services, policy advocacy, research in information and media organizations, and legal research. They will be even better prepared for such activities if they also complete INF 390.1, Federal Information Policy, taught most fall semesters.

The goals of this Government Information course are multiple:

 To help all students fulfill their obligations and exercise their rights as citizens. An essential part of citizenship is oversight of government, and being familiar with government information and government structures contributes directly to such oversight.

 To ensure that iSchool graduate students develop expertise with government information resources as providers of information services to others.

 To give graduate students in all disciplines increased expertise in the use of government information resources and increased insight into important information policy issues.

 To help graduate students in all disciplines develop professional and personal strategies for evaluating governmental information sources and services.

In order to achieve these goals, the course will involve:

1. Hands-on experience with the use of government information in various formats, with doing research using government information, and with the strengths and weaknesses of government information services and products; print, digital, and microform formats will all be used.

2. Study of the lifecycle of government information, from creation through organization and dissemination to use, archiving, and destruction; students will gain proficiency especially in the use of legal and policy-related government information services and products.

3. Consideration of the challenges and opportunities presented by digital information technologies to users and managers of government information.

4. Identification and study of selected important policy conflicts in the government information lifecycle, especially in its funding, creation, dissemination, and use.

5. Consideration of the complex and dynamic relationships among public sector and private sector organizations in the description, organization, and distribution of public information.

6. Discussion of “fee or free” conflicts arising from government information and the investment of public monies in its creation and dissemination.

7. Serious examination of selected major policy issues such as surveillance of citizens, privacy of government records, intellectual property (especially copyright), freedom of information, the Federal Depository Library Program, constitutional conflict among branches of government about information management and Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 3 dissemination, and information resources management (IRM). Coverage of these and related topics vary as the instructor’s and students’ interests dictate.

8. Development of personal and professional criteria for the evaluation of government information services and products appropriate to various audiences, uses, formats, and professional situations; the comparison of digital and print resources may be of particular interest to students in the course.

9. Development of particular expertise in providing research support to other users of government information.

The assignments for the course will include:

 Reference problem sets aimed to help students develop skills in the identification, location, and use of important sources of government information

 Reports on the information initiatives of government agencies, including consideration of important policy issues related to these initiatives

 Local site visits – these visits are required.

STUDENT COLLABORATION

The instructor encourages collaboration and collegiality among the students enrolled in the course, and assignments are partially designed to foster cooperative work among students. Unless indicated otherwise, all assignments are assumed to be each student’s original work, especially the research problem sets.

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 4 EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE

Students are expected to be involved, creative, and vigorous participants in class discussions and in the overall conduct of the class. In addition, students are expected to:

• Attend all class sessions; if a student misses a class, it is his or her responsibility to arrange with another student to obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets. The assignments presume that students are familiar with all material discussed in class.

• Read all material prior to class; students are expected to use the course readings to inform their classroom participation and their writing assignments. Students must learn to integrate what they read with what they say and write. This last imperative is essential to the development of professional expertise.

• Educate themselves and their peers. Your successful completion of your graduate program and your professional success depend upon your willingness to demonstrate initiative, creativity, and responsibility. Your participation in the professional and personal growth of your colleagues is essential to their success and your own. Such collegiality is at the heart of professional practice. Some assignments in this course are designed explicitly to encourage collaboration.

• Spend at least 3-4 hours in preparation for each hour of classroom instruction, i.e., about 10-12 hours per week for the course.

• Participate in all class discussions.

• Hand in all assignments fully and on time -- late assignments will not be accepted except in the particular circumstances noted below.

• Be responsible with collective property, especially books and other material on reserve.

• Ask for any explanation and help from the instructor or the Teaching Assistant, either in class, during office hours, on the telephone, through email, or in any other appropriate way. Email is especially appropriate for information questions, but please recall that I try to stay home two days a week and that I do not have access to email at home. It may be several days after you send email before I see it. It is always wise to send a copy of any email intended for the instructor to the TA as well; she has access to email more regularly.

Academic or scholastic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, will not be tolerated and will incur the most severe penalties, including failure for the course.

If there is any concern about behavior that may be academically dishonest, please consult the instructor. Students are also encouraged to refer to the UT General Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and the brochure Texas is the Best . . . HONESTLY! (1988) by the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of Students.

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 5 ANALYSIS IN READING, WRITING, AND PRESENTING

Students in this class must be analytic in their reading of others' work, in their own writing, and in their presentations. What follows are suggestions for developing analytic and critical methods of thinking and communication. These suggestions are also indications of what you should expect from the writing and speaking of others:

• First and foremost, maximize clarity -- be clear, but not simplistic or patronizing.

• Remember that writing is a form of thinking, not just a medium to "display" the results of thinking; make your thinking engaging, reflective, and clear.

• Provide enough context for your remarks that your audience can understand them but not so much that your audience's attention or comprehension is lost.

• Be specific.

• Avoid jargon, undefined terms, undefined acronyms, colloquialisms, clichés, and vague language.

• Give examples.

• Be critical, not dismissive, of others' work; be reflective, not cynical.

• Answer the difficult but important "how?," "why?," and “so what?” questions.

• Support assertions with evidence.

• Make explicit why the evidence used to support an assertion does so.

• Identify and explore the specific practical, social, and intellectual implications of courses of action.

• Synthesize and internalize existing knowledge without losing your own critical point of view -- be evaluative.

• Identify the specific criteria against which assessments of others' work and options for action will be measured.

See the Standards for Written Work and the assignment descriptions in this syllabus for further explanations and examples.

Also please remember that depth of analysis must always be complemented by a holistic, integrative understanding of context.

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 6 STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK

Review these standards both before and after writing; they are used to evaluate your work.

You will be expected to meet professional standards of maturity, clarity, grammar, spelling, and organization in your written work for this class, and, to that end, I offer the following remarks. Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what his or her audience knows about the topic at hand; therefore, effective communication depends upon maximizing clarity. As Wolcott reminds us in Writing Up Qualitative Research (1990, p. 47): "Address . . . the many who do not know, not the few who do." It is also important to remember that clarity of ideas, clarity of language, and clarity of syntax are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. Good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa.

All written work for the class must be done on a word-processor and double-spaced, with 1" margins all the way around and in either 10 or 12 pt. font.

Certain writing assignments will demand the use of notes (either footnotes or endnotes) and references. It is particularly important in professional schools such as the School of Information that notes and references are impeccably done. Please use APA (American Psychological Association) standards. There are other standard bibliographic and note formats, for example, in engineering and law, but social scientists and a growing number of humanists use APA. Familiarity with standard formats is essential for understanding others' work and for preparing submissions to journals, funding agencies, professional conferences, and the like. You may also consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed.) and http://webster.commnet.edu/apa/apa_index.htm (a useful if non-canonical source).

Do not use a general dictionary or encyclopedia for defining terms in graduate school or in professional writing. If you want to use a reference source to define a term, a better choice would be a specialized dictionary such as The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy or subject-specific encyclopedia, e.g., the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. The best alternative, however, is having an understanding of the literature related to the term sufficient to provide a definition in the context of that literature.

Use the spell checker in your word processing package to review your documents, but be aware that spell checking dictionaries: do not include most proper nouns, including personal and place names; omit most technical terms; include very few foreign words and phrases; and cannot identify the error in using homophones, e.g., writing "there" instead of "their," or in writing "the" instead of "them."

It is imperative that you proofread your work thoroughly and be precise in editing it. It is often helpful to have someone else read your writing, to eliminate errors and to increase clarity. Finally, each assignment should be handed in with a title page containing your full name, the date, the title of the assignment, and the class number (INF 382M). If you have any questions about these standards, I would be pleased to discuss them with you at any time.

Remember, every assignment must include a title page with

• The title of the assignment

• Your name

• The date

• The class number – INF 382M. CONTINUED

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 7 STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED)

Since the production of professional-level written work is one of the aims of the class, I will read and edit your work as the editor of a professional journal or the moderator of a technical session at a professional conference would. The reminders below will help you prepare professional-level written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 25 (some have more than one error):

1. Staple all papers for this class in the upper left-hand corner. Do not use covers, binders, or other means of keeping the pages together.

2. Number all pages after the title page. Ordinarily, notes and references do NOT count against page limits.

3. Use formal, academic prose. Avoid colloquial language, *you know?* It is essential in graduate work and in professional communication to avoid failures in diction -- be serious and academic when called for, be informal and relaxed when called for, and be everything in between as necessary. For this course, avoid words and phrases such as "agenda," "problem with," "deal with," "handle," "window of," "goes into," "broken down into," "viable," and "option."

4. Avoid clichés. They are vague, *fail to "push the envelope," and do not provide "relevant input."*

5. Avoid computer technospeak like "input," "feedback," or "processing information" except when using such terms in specific technical ways; similarly avoid using “content” as a noun.

6. Do not use the term "relevant" except in its information retrieval sense. Ordinarily, it is a colloquial cliché, but it also has a strict technical meaning in information studies.

7. Do not use "quality" as an adjective; it is vague, cliché, and colloquial. Instead use "high-quality," "excellent," "superior," or whatever more formal phrase you deem appropriate.

8. Study the APA style convention for the proper use of ellipsis*. . . .*

9. Avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" in their evidentiary senses; these terms entail major philosophical, epistemological controversy. Avoid terms such as "facts," "factual," "proven," and related constructions for similar reasons.

10. Avoid contractions. *Don't* use them in formal writing.

11. Be circumspect in using the term "this," especially in the beginning of a sentence. *THIS* is often a problem because the referent is unclear. Pay strict attention to providing clear referents for all pronouns. Especially ensure that pronouns and their referents agree in number; e.g., "each person went to their home" is a poor construction because "each" is a singular form, as is the noun "person," while "their" is a plural form. Therefore, either the referent or the pronoun must change in number.

12. “If" ordinarily takes the subjunctive mood, e.g., "If he were [not "was"] only taller."

13. Put "only" in its appropriate place, near the word it modifies. For example, it is appropriate in spoken English to say that "he only goes to Antone's" when you mean that "the only place he frequents is Antone's." In written English, however, the sentence should read "he goes only to Antone's."

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 8 STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED)

14. Do not confuse possessive, plural, or contracted forms, especially of pronouns. *Its* bad.

15. Do not confuse affect/effect, compliment/complement, or principle/principal. Readers will not *complement* your work or *it's* *principle* *affect* on them.

16. Avoid misplaced modifiers; e.g., it is inappropriate to write the following sentence: As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, it was important for me to attend the lecture. The sentence is inappropriate because the phrase "As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica" is meant to modify the next immediate word, which should then, obviously, be both a person and the subject of the sentence. It should modify the word "I" by preceding it immediately. One good alternative for the sentence is: As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, I was especially eager to attend the lecture.

17. Avoid use of "valid," "parameter," "bias," "reliability," and "paradigm," except in limited technical ways. These are important research terms and should be used with precision.

18. Remember that the words "data," "media," "criteria," "strata," and "phenomena" are all PLURAL forms. They *TAKES* plural verbs. If you use any of these plural forms in a singular construction, e.g., "the data is," you will make the instructor very unhappy :-(.

19. "Number," "many," and "fewer" are used with plural nouns (a number of horses, many horses, and fewer horses). “Amount," "much," and "less" are used with singular nouns (an amount of hydrogen, much hydrogen, and less hydrogen). Another useful way to make this distinction is to recall that "many" is used for countable nouns, while "much" is used for uncountable nouns.

20. *The passive voice should generally not be used.*

21. "Between" is used with two alternatives, while "among" is used with three or more.

22. Generally avoid the use of honorifics such as Mister, Doctor, Ms., and so on when referring to persons in your writing, especially when citing their written work. Use last names and dates as appropriate in APA.

23. There is no generally accepted standard for citing electronic resources. If you cite them, give an indication, as specifically as possible, of:

- responsibility (who?) - title (what?) - date of creation (when?) - date viewed (when?) - place to find the source (where? how?).

See the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed., pp. 213-214, 231, and 268-281) for a discussion of citing electronic material and useful examples. Also see Web Extension to American Psychological Association Style (WEAPAS) at http://www.beadsland.com/weapas/#SCRIBE

24. "Cite" is a verb, "citation" is a noun; similarly, "quote" is a verb, "quotation" is a noun.

25. *PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!*

26. Use double quotation marks (“abc.”), not single quotation marks (‘xyz.’), as a matter of course. Single quotation marks are to be used to indicate quotations within quotations.

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 9 27. Provide a specific page number for all direct quotations. If the quotation is from a Web page or other digital source, provide at least the paragraph number, section number, and/or other directional cues, e.g., “(Davis, 1993, section II, ¶ 4).”

28. In ordinary American English, as ≠ because.

29. Use "about" instead of the tortured locution "as to."

30. In much of social science and humanistic study, the term "issue" is used in a technical way to identify sources of public controversy or dissensus. Please use the term to refer to topics about which there is substantial public disagreement, NOT synonymously with general terms such as "area," "topic," or the like.

31. “Impact” is a noun.

32. Please do not start a sentence or any independent clause with “however.”

33. Do not use the term “subjects” to describe research participants. “Respondents,” “participants,” and “informants” are preferred terms.

34. Do not use notes unless absolutely necessary, but, if you must use them, use endnotes not footnotes.

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 10 SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS’ PAPERS

Symbol Meaning

# number OR insert a space; context will help you decipher its meaning

AWK awkward; and usually compromises clarity as well block make into a block quotation without external quotation marks; do so with quotations ≥ 4 lines caps capitalize

COLLOQ colloquial and to be avoided dB database

FRAG sentence fragment; often that means that the verb and/or subject of the sentence is missing

ITAL italicize j journal lc make into lower case lib'ship librarianship org, org’l organization, organizational

PL plural

Q question

REF? what is the referent of this pronoun? to what or whom does it refer?

RQ research question

SING singular sp spelling w/ with w.c.? word choice?

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 11 GRADING

Evaluation of students’ performance in this class includes the following grades:

A+ Extraordinarily high achievement A Superior A- Excellent B+ Good B Satisfactory B- Barely satisfactory C+ Unsatisfactory C Unsatisfactory C- Unsatisfactory D Unacceptable F Unacceptable and failing.

See the memorandum from former Dean Brooke Sheldon dated August 13, 1991, and the notice in the School of Information student orientation packets for explanations of this system. Students should consult the iSchool Web site (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/index.html) and the Graduate School Catalogue (e.g., http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad03-05/ch1/ch1a.html#nature and http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad03-05/ch1/ch1b.html#student) for more on standards of work. The University of Texas does not yet use the +/- grading system that we do at the iSchool; UT accepts only full letter grades. Therefore, for example, a B- and B+ final grade at iSchool both translate to a final grade of B at the University level.

A grade of B signals acceptable, satisfactory performance in graduate school. In this class, the grade of A is reserved for students who demonstrate not only a command of the concepts and techniques discussed but also an ability to synthesize and integrate them in a professional manner, communicate ideas effectively, and contribute to the development of their classmates.

The grade of incomplete (X) is reserved for students in extraordinary circumstances and must be negotiated with the instructor before the end of the semester. See the former Dean's memorandum of August 13, 1991, available from the main iSchool office.

I use points to evaluate assignments, not letter grades. Points on any assignment are determined using an arithmetic not a proportional algorithm. For example, 14/20 points on an assignment does NOT translate to 70% of the credit, or a D. Instead 14/20 points is very roughly equivalent to a B. If any student's semester point total > 90 (is equal to or greater than 90), then s/he will have earned an A of some kind. If the semester point total > 80, then s/he will have earned at least a B of some kind. Whether these are A+, A, A-, B+, B, or B- depends upon the comparison of point totals for all students. For example, if a student earns 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 98, the student earns an A-. If, on the other hand, a student earns 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 91, then the student earns an A. This system will be further explained throughout the semester.

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 12 TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS

There are three required texts for this class. Hernon et al. (2002) and Hernon et al. (2003) can be purchased at the Co-op, while the reading packet can be purchased from University Duplicating Service at the Graduate School of Business, GSB 3.136 (471-8281). As many of the readings as possible will be on Reserve at PCL; some of the readings are available electronically as indicated later in the syllabus.

The required texts are:

Hernon, Peter, Relyea, Harold C., Dugan, Robert E., & Chevrie, Joan F. (2002). United States government information. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Hernon, Peter, Dugan, Robert E., & Shuler, John A. (2003). U.S. government on the Web: Getting the information you need (3rd ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. http://www.rdugan.org/govwebbook/toc.html

A one-volume reading packet.

Recommended texts include:

Morehead, Joe. (1999). Introduction to United States government information sources (6th ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Robinson, Judith Schiek. (1998). Tapping the government grapevine: The user-friendly guide to U.S. government information sources (3rd ed.). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.

The course Web site, as well as direct email messages, will be used to inform students of changes in the course schedule, discuss assignments, and so on. Both means can be used by all course participants to communicate with each other, pass along information regarding interesting events and resources, and the like. Students will also need to be familiar with basic Internet tools including a Web browser in order to identify and use sources of and about government information sources, services, and policy.

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 13 LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS

Additional information about each assignment will be provided by the instructor. Written assignments are to be word-processed and double-spaced in 10- or 12-point font, with 1" margins. Assignments are due in class unless otherwise indicated. GRP indicates a group assignment.

Assignment Date Due Percent of Grade

Preparation and participation ----- 10%

Discussion of McClure (2004) review OCT 25, online ----- of Hernon et al. text (2002)

Research problem sets

U.S. federal information OCT 11, in class 25 Spatially-referenced and statistical information NOV 1, in class 15 Texas, state, and international information NOV 22, in class 15

U.S. federal or state agency information initiative report (20 pp.) GRP

Identification of research team, agency, OCT 4, in class ----- and information initiative (1 p.)

Outline or full draft of report NOV 15, in class -----

Report on specific federal or state agency’s DEC 6, 3:00 PM in information service (20 pp.) the instructor’s mail box in SZB 564 35

All assignments must be handed in on time, and the instructor reserves the right to issue a course grade of F if any assignment is not completed. Late assignments will not be accepted unless three criteria are met:

1. At least 24 hours before the date due, the instructor gives explicit permission to the student to hand the assignment in late.

2. At the same time, a specific date and time are agreed upon for the late submission.

3. The assignment is then submitted on or before the agreed-upon date and time.

The first criterion can be met only in the most serious of health, family, or personal situations.

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 14 OUTLINE OF COURSE

Class Date Topics

Unit 1: Introduction to the Study of Government Information

1 AUG 30 Introduction to the course Introduction to government and information

• Tour of government information collection at PCL

SEP 6 NO CLASS – Labor Day

Unit 2: United States Federal Government Information

2 SEP 13 Selected history of federal information activities Federal Depository Library Program Finding aids

• Tour of government information collection at Public Affairs Library

3 SEP 20 Federal legislative information Legislative histories The U.S. Code

4 SEP 27 The Presidency and selected executive branch agencies The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register

5 OCT 4 Federal judicial information: the U.S. Supreme, District, and Appeals Courts Major digital repositories of federal judicial information

• Assignment due: Identification of research team, federal or state agency, and information initiative (1 p.) GRP

6 OCT 11 Spatially-referenced information: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and maps

• Assignment due: U.S. Federal information problem set (25%)

7 OCT 18 Sources of statistical data 2000 U.S. Census

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 15 Unit 3: Texas and Other State Information

8 OCT 25 Texas legislative information

• Tour of UT Law Library

• Assignment due: Discussion of McClure (2004) review of Hernon et al. text (2002)

9 NOV 1 Texas executive and regulatory information

• Assignment due: Spatially-referenced and statistical information problem set (15%)

10 NOV 8 Texas judicial information

Unit 4: The United Nations and Other Sources of International Government Information

11 NOV 15 United Nations, European Union, and OECD documents

• Assignment due: Outline or full draft of agency report GRP

Unit 5: Selected Government Information Policy Areas

12 NOV 22 E-government Surveillance

• Assignment due: Texas, state, and international information problem set (15%)

13 NOV 29 Course evaluation Federal freedom of information and state open records Information resources management (IRM) and paperwork reduction

DEC 6, MON NO CLASS – assignment due at 3:00 PM

• Assignment due: Report on specific federal or state agency’s information service (20 double-spaced pp.)(35%) GRP

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 16 SCHEDULE

The following schedule is tentative and may be adjusted as we progress through the semester.

MeetingDate Topics

Unit 1: Introduction to the Study of Government Information

AUG 30 Introduction to the course Introduction to government and information

• Tour of government information collection at PCL

READ: Hernon et al. (2002), Chapter 1 and Appendix (pp. 395-405) Hernon et al. (2003), Chapters 1 and 2 Hernon (1996) OTA (1988), Chapter 1 online

AS: Robinson (1998), Chapters 1 and 2 Morehead (1999), Chapter 1 McClure (1999) OTA (1988), Chapter 2 Smith (2002)

SEP 6 NO CLASS – Labor Day

Unit 2: United States Federal Government Information

SEP 13 Selected history of federal information activities Federal Depository Library Program Finding aids

• Tour of government information collection at Public Affairs Library

READ: Hernon et al. (2002), Chapters 2 and 15 Hernon et al. (2003), Chapter 3 Shuler (2001) online Hernon & Shuler (1996)

AS: Robinson (1998), Chapters 3, 4, and 5 Morehead (1999), Chapters 2, 3, and 4 Barkley (1998) online Hutto (1996) online Kram (1998) online OTA (1988), Chapters 4, 6, and 7

20 Federal legislative information Legislative histories The U.S. Code

READ: Hernon et al. (2002), Chapters 3 and 4 (pp. 68-69, 70-80, 82-83, and 85-89) Hernon et al. (2002) CD-ROM, PRA legislative history Hernon et al. (2003), Chapter 4

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 17 AS: Robinson (1998), Chapter 8 Morehead (1999), Chapter 5

SEP 27 The Presidency and selected executive branch agencies The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register

READ: Hernon et al. (2002), Chapters 5 (pp. 91-98 and 104-117), 6, and 10 Hernon et al. (2003), Chapters 5 and 6 Holden & Hernon (1996)

AS: Robinson (1998), Chapters 9 and 10 Morehead (1999), Chapters 6, 7, and 11

OCT 4 Federal judicial information: the U.S. Supreme, District, and Appeals Courts Major digital repositories of federal judicial information

READ: Hernon et al. (2002), Chapter 11 Hernon et al. (2003), Chapter 7 Kirtley (1996) Shuler (2004a) online

AS: Robinson (1998), Chapter 11 Morehead (1999), Chapter 8

• Assignment due: Identification of research team, federal or state agency, and information initiative (1 p.) GRP

11 Spatially-referenced information: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and maps

READ: Hernon et al. (2002), Chapter 14 Hernon et al. (2003), Chapter 11 Cox and Gifford (1997) online Shuler (2003b) online Shuler & Obermeyer (2001) online

AS: Hernon & Lopez (1996) Morehead (1999), Chapter 12

• Assignment due: U.S. Federal information problem set (25%)

18 Sources of statistical data 2000 U.S. Census

READ: Hernon et al. (2002), Chapter 13 Hernon et al. (2003), Chapter 8 Kavaliunas (2000) online

AS: Robinson (1998), Chapter 12 Morehead (1999), Chapter 9

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 18 Unit 3: Texas and Other State Information

OCT 25 Texas legislative information

• Tour of UT Law Library

READ: Online material: Texas legislative information McClure (2004) online

• Assignment due: Online discussion of McClure (2004) review of Hernon et al. text (2002)

NOV 1 Texas executive and regulatory information

READ: Online material: Texas executive and regulatory information

• Assignment due: Spatial and statistical information problem set (15%)

8 Texas judicial information

READ: Online material: Texas judicial information Shuler (2002c) online

Unit 4: The United Nations and Other Sources of International Government Information

15 United Nations, European Union, and OECD documents

READ: Online material: United Nations, EU, and OECD documents

AS: Robinson (1998), Chapter 15

• Assignment due: Outline or full draft of agency report GRP

Unit 5: Selected Government Information Policy Areas

22 E-government Surveillance

READ: Hernon et al. (2002), Chapters 9 and 16, review Appendix (pp. 395-405) Doty (2003) Jaeger et al. (2003) online Relyea (2001b) online Shuler (2002d) online Shuler (2004b) online

AS: Doty (1998) Doty (2001a) Gellman (1996b)

• Assignment due: Texas, state, and international information problem set Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 19 (15%)

NOV 29 Course evaluation Federal freedom of information and state open records Information resources management (IRM) and paperwork reduction

READ: Hernon et al. (2002), Chapter 7 and 8 Hernon et al. (2003), Chapter 14 and Appendix A Bertot et al. (1996) Relyea (1996a) Shuler (2002b) online Shuler (2003a) online

AS: Hernon et al. (2002), Chapter 12 OMB Circular A-130 (1985, 1994, and 1996) Relyea (2001a) online

DEC 6, MON NO CLASS – assignment due at 3:00 PM

• Assignment due: Report on specific federal or state agency’s information service (20 double-spaced pp.)(35%) GRP

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 20 ASSIGNMENTS

Since this course moves quickly at times, it is imperative to keep up with the readings and with the written assignments. It is very difficult to cover all the important topics related to government information in any one semester, but the course and assignments are structured to help you develop significant expertise with government information sources, services, and policies. You should be confident that you will emerge with considerable familiarity with important government information sources, programs, actors, and the like. Naturally, your success in this course, as with all others, depends upon your own initiative.

Please consult the sections in this syllabus on (1) Analysis in Reading, Writing, and Presenting and (2) Standards for Written Work before and after doing the assignments.

Class preparation and participation

Besides being an active and engaged member of the class, each student must subscribe to GOVDOC-L and monitor it throughout the fall semester. The user’s guide is at http://docs.lib.duke.edu/federal/govdoc-l/, and you can subscribe at http://docs.lib.duke.edu/federal/govdoc-l/options.html -- please do so immediately if you are not already subscribed.

Please read the messages during the fall semester, but also explore the current archives (http://lists1.cac.psu.edu/archives/govdoc-l.html) and earlier archives (http://docs.lib.duke.edu/federal/govdoc- l/search.html).

Certainly feel free post to this list as your interests dictate. But please recall that it is never wise to spam subscribers to such lists for help with your class assignments ;~).

Research problem sets – due October 11, October 25, and November 22 (25, 15, and 15%)

There will be three reference problem sets due at various times of the semester. Each student will use the handouts as the answer sheets, using the suggested sources for determining the answers. It is imperative to document your answers fully and to use the particular sources and formats as indicated in the problem instructions. The sets cover three broad topics:

 U.S. federal information, due October 11 (25%)  Spatially-referenced and statistical information, due October 25 (15%)  Texas, state, and international information, due November 22 (15%).

The instructor will provide each problem set in hard copy and as a Word email attachment at least one week before it is due.

There are many other very valuable sources of such questions, many with answers provided, including:

 The CD-ROM in the text (Hernon et al., 2002); these exercises, with answers, come largely from Joe Morehead’s teaching materials.  Exercises at the end of each chapter in Robinson (1999), with solutions gathered together at the end of the volume.  Many online syllabi for courses similar to this one from universities across the country, e.g., at the University of Arizona, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Simmons College, Syracuse University, Florida State University, the University of North Texas, the University of Albany (SUNY), the University of Illinois, and Indiana University, have exercises and (often) answers to them.

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 21 You may find all of these sources valuable to you, well beyond this semester’s work. The more initiative you take in this regard, the more expert with government information you will become.

Report on agency’s information initiative – due October 4, November 15, and December 6 (35%)

Students will organize themselves into groups of two or three in order to identify and evaluate one publicly accessible, Web-based information product or service offered by a U.S. federal, state, or local government agency. This Web-based initiative can involve the creation, collection, organization, and/or dissemination of information. Of special interest are how the initiative contributes to the achievement of the agency’s mission, what audience(s) the initiative is meant to reach, and how the initiative helps us think further about concerns and issues we have considered in the course.

The report will focus on one major information program or product on the Web for any public audience(s). Appropriate sources for this assignment include, for example, Web sites (perhaps three to five screens “deep”) meant to provide information and offer other government services or to provide information education. This information product or service should not be one that we have spent much time discussing in class.

By October 4, the students will notify the instructor of the members of the student team and of the agency information product or service the team will examine. The team will then submit an outline or full draft of their report no later than November 15. The team will submit the final report of 20 double-spaced no later than 3:00 PM on December 6, one week after the last class, in the instructor’s mailbox in SZB 564.

This final report will have the following components:

 Clear identification of the agency offering the Web-based service or product, explicit discussion of the goal(s) and audience(s) of the initiative, what links (if any) there are between the service or product and the agency’s mission, and appropriate discussion of the context in which the initiative developed and is offered. Be specific. (10 pp., 15%)

 Evaluation of the Web site using the criteria identified in McClure et al. (2000), in Dawes et al. (2004), and from other class readings and discussions. Consider other criteria that are important. Also feel free to complement, not replace, this evaluation with consideration of appropriate criteria for transparency and usability. Be very clear and particular here; general, high-level abstractions must be clearly linked to the initiative’s characteristics, functionalities, weaknesses and strengths, and the like. (5 pp., 10%)

 Discussion of how the service or product is implicated in the discussions about surveillance of citizens and e- government. More specifically, what enhancements of, protections of, and threats to citizens’ exercise of use of government information and informed oversight of government does the initiative offer? Where, if anywhere, does the initiative fit in conceptions of e-government? These questions, of course, are quite complex, and, as we have seen throughout the semester, reasonable people disagree about how to answer them.

Please be sure that this part of the paper is analytic, reflective, holistic, and specifically grounded in all of the sources you use. Also be sure to review two parts of the syllabus: (1) Analysis in Reading, Writing, and Presenting and (2) Suggestions for Writing Policy Analysis. Recall that you will not be able to perform a fully realized policy analysis, given your time and space constraints, but I expect that you will be able to make an informed and informing argument, well beyond the simplistic “well, I think . . .” or “on the one hand . . . but on the other” approaches. Show how the course has improved your ability to make policy arguments. (5 pp. 10%)

While you may be tempted to distribute the work so that each member of the team writes only one part of the final version, that would not be wise. One member of the team might take the lead in drafting one part of the report, but all members of the team should be involved in doing research about, writing, revising, and completing all parts of the report.

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 22 One person should, however, prepare the final version of the report to ensure that it sounds like one person and is well-integrated, instead of a choppy amalgam of various voices. The TA may be very useful in this regard, as will the preparation of as complete a draft as possible by the November 15 deadline.

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 23 SUGGESTIONS FOR WRITING POLICY ANALYSIS

This section of the syllabus offers three general, interrelated models for doing policy analysis and then writing policy reports, beyond that offered in Majchrzak (1984). You can use these to guide your own writing as your study of policy analysis progresses beyond this semester’s work, but they are also useful for evaluating the work of others. Such evaluations are very common in policy studies, whether one is doing so for the purposes of critique, literature review, or peer review. Policy analysts constantly review each others’ work in a collegial but demanding way.

The first model is based on one offered by Charles R. McClure at Florida State University, with my own modifications added. Particular analysts and topics may demand different approaches:

• Abstract

• Introduction

Importance of specific topic Definition of key terms Key stakeholders Key policy areas needing analysis and resolution

• Overview of current knowledge

Evaluative review of the literature about the topic, including print and electronic sources

• Existing policy related to the topic

The most important legislative, judicial, and regulatory policy instruments Ambiguities, conflicts, problems, and contradictions related to the instruments

• Key issues

Underlying assumptions Effects on and roles of key stakeholders Conflicts among key values Implications of issues

• Conclusions and recommendations

Recommendations Rationale for recommendations Implications and possible outcomes of specific courses of action

• References

APA style All sources cited in the paper.

CONTINUED

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 24 SUGGESTIONS FOR WRITING POLICY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)

Bardach (2000) is the source for the second approach to doing policy analysis. His book is entitled A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving. As such, the first two thirds of his book focuses on this “eightfold path,” in a way somewhat reminiscent of Majchrzak (1984). Bardach identifies eight steps in policy analysis (using his words):

 Define the problem

 Assemble some evidence

 Construct the alternatives (for action)

 Select the criteria

 Project the outcomes

 Confront the trade-offs

 Decide!

 Tell your story.

Despite his somewhat misplaced emphasis on the rhetoric of problem solving (see, e.g., Schön, 1993) and an implicit linearity he uses to characterize policy analysis, his book is very useful for understanding the overwhelming importance (1) of narrative in the process of policy analysis, (2) of iteration in analysis, and (3) of clarity in argumentation. Bardach also gives some important insights into the contributions of econometric analysis to policy studies.

The third model is based primarily on the work of William Dunn (1994), with contributions from Ray Rist (2000) on qualitative policy research methods, Emery Roe (1994) on narrative policy analysis, and Donald Schön (1993) on generative metaphor. I deliberately avoid the rhetoric of problems and problem solving in this model, e.g., Doty (2001b).

CONTINUED

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 25 SUGGESTIONS FOR WRITING POLICY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)

Elements of the policy issue paper (adapted from Dunn, 1994, with material from Rist, 2000; Roe, 1994; and Schön, 1993)

Element Examples of Evaluative Criteria

Executive summary Are recommendations highlighted?

Background of the issue or dilemma Are all the important terms clearly defined?

Description of the social dilemma Are all appropriate dimensions described? Outcomes of earlier efforts to address the dilemma Are prior efforts clearly assessed?

Scope and severity of the conflict

Assessment of past policy efforts Significance of the conflict Why is the social conflict important? Need for analysis What are the major assumptions and questions to be considered? Issue statement

Definition of the issue Is the issue clearly stated? Major stakeholders Are all major stakeholders identified and prioritized? Goals and objectives Is the approach to analysis clearly specified? Measures of effectiveness Are goals and objectives clearly specified? Potential “solutions” or new understandings Are major value conflicts identified and described?

Policy alternatives Are alternatives compared in terms of costs and Description of alternatives effectiveness? Comparison of future outcomes Are alternatives systematically compared in terms of Externalities political feasibility? Constraints and political feasibility

Policy recommendations Are all relevant criteria clearly specified? Criteria for recommending alternatives Is a strategy for implementation clearly specified? Descriptions of preferred alternative(s) Are there adequate provisions for monitoring and Outline of implementation strategy evaluating policies, particularly unintended Limitations and possible unanticipated outcomes consequences?

References

Appendices

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 26 REFERENCES

Bardach, Eugene. (2000). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. New York: Chatham House.

Bertot, John Carlo, McClure, Charles R., Ryan, Joe, & Beachboard, John. (1996). Federal Information Resource Management: Integrating information and technology. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 105-135). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Cox, Allan B., & Gifford Fred. (1997). An overview to geographic information systems. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 23(6), 449-461. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? _ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6556&_auth=y&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5 =e870a3ab955acd8f06b0ef106cb39dc9&chunk=23#23

Dawes, Sharon S., Pardo, Theresa A., & Cresswell, Anthony M. (2004). Designing electronic government information access programs: A holistic approach. Government Information quarterly, 21(1), 3-23. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC %236542%232004%23999789998%23500060%23FLA%23Volume_21,_Issue_1,_Pages_1- 124_(2004)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=7d829fd 6ce20151242cc27579962c18c

Doty, Philip. (2003). “A” is for anybody: The USA PATRIOT Act and library records. Presentation at the Symposium on Information and the War on Terrorism, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, April 2003.

Dunn, William N. (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hernon, Peter. (1996). Government information policy in a time of uncertainty and change. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 1-18). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hernon, Peter, Dugan, Robert E., & Shuler, John A. (2003). U.S. government on the Web: Getting the information you need (3rd ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. http://www.rdugan.org/govwebbook/toc.html

Hernon, Peter, Relyea, Harold C., Dugan, Robert E., & Chevrie, Joan F. (2002). United States government information. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Hernon, Peter, & Shuler, John A. (1996). The Depository Library Program: Another component of the access puzzle shifting to electronic formats. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 259-278). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Holden, Stephen H., & Hernon, Peter. (1996). An executive branch perspective on managing information resources. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 83-104). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Jaeger, Paul T., Bertot, John Carlo, & McClure, Charles R. (2003). The impact of the USA Patriot [sic] Act on collection and analysis of personal information under the Foreign Surveillance Act. Government Information Quarterly, 20(3), 295-314. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey= %23TOC%236542%232003%23999799996%23442586%23FLA%23Volume_20,_Issue_3,_Pages_213- 322_(July_2003)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=c5 c4c3a3bda2dcf5a0fa8c44d1522e6c

Kavaliunas, John. (2000). Census 2000 products. Government Information Quarterly, 17(2), 209-222. Also available at http://weblinks2.epnet.com/hjafdetail.asp?tb=1&_ug=dbs+3+ln+en%2Dus+sid+5631588D %2DD295%2D47A9%2D8C13%2D45E735C74DED Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 27 %40Sessionmgr2+86CF&_uh=btn+N+db+buh+idb+buhish+jdb+buhjnh+op+phrase+ss+TD++%22GIQ %22+641D&_us=dstb+ES+sm+ES+99E7&st=&vw=O&rn=1&vm=open&vs=4#4

Kirtley, Jane. (1996). Access to the judicial branch. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 67-82). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Majchrzak, Ann. (1984). Methods for policy research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McClure, Charles R. (2004). [Review of the book United States Government Information: Policies and Sources] Government Information Quarterly, 21(1), 113-114. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? _ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236542%232004%23999789998%23500060%23FLA %23Volume_21,_Issue_1,_Pages_1- 124_(2004)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=7d829fd 6ce20151242cc27579962c18c

McClure, Charles R., Sprehe, J. Timothy, & Eschenfelder, Kristin. (2000). Performance measures for federal agency Websites [sic]: Final report to sponsoring agencies: Defense Technical Information Center, Energy Information Administration, and Government Printing Office. Available at http://www.jtsprehe.com/performa.htm

Morehead, Joe. (1999). Introduction to United States government information sources (6th ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Relyea, Harold C. (1996a). Freedom of information revisited. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 183-210). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Relyea, Harold C. (2001b). Legislating personal privacy protection: The federal response. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(1), 36-51. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey= %23TOC%236556%232001%23999729998%23227714%23FLA%23Volume_27,_Issue_1,_Pages_1- 78_(January_2001)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5= f829a445c85c43e81e955bb85995fc46

Rist, Ray C. (2000). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1001-1017). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Robinson, Judith Schiek. (1998). Tapping the government grapevine: The user-friendly guide to U.S. government information sources (3rd ed.). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.

Roe, Emery. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham, NC: Duke University.

Schön, Donald A. (1993). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 137-163). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Shuler, John A. (2001). Beyond the depository library concept. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(4), 299- 301. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? _ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6556&_auth=y&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5 =e870a3ab955acd8f06b0ef106cb39dc9&chunk=23#23

Shuler, John A. (2002a). Data quality is in the eye of the beholder. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(5), 352- 353. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? _ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6556&_auth=y&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5 =e870a3ab955acd8f06b0ef106cb39dc9&chunk=23#23

Shuler, John A. (2002b). Freedom of public information versus the right to public information: The future possibilities of library advocacy. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(3), 157-159. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 28 _ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6556&_auth=y&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5 =e870a3ab955acd8f06b0ef106cb39dc9&chunk=23#23

Shuler, John A. (2002c). Information policies of local governments and academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(4), 244-247. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? _ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6556&_auth=y&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5 =e870a3ab955acd8f06b0ef106cb39dc9&chunk=23#23

Shuler, John A. (2002d). Librarians go to war. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(1), 59-62. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? _ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6556&_auth=y&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5 =e870a3ab955acd8f06b0ef106cb39dc9&chunk=23#23

Shuler, John A. (2003a). Citizen-centered government: Information policy possibilities for the 108th Congress. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 29(2), 107-110. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? _ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6556&_auth=y&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5 =e870a3ab955acd8f06b0ef106cb39dc9&chunk=23#23

Shuler, John A. (2003b). On and off the grid: Geographic information science and technology and academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 29(5), 327-329. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC %236556%232003%23999709994%23462865%23FLA%23Volume_29,_Issue_5,_Pages_275- 342_(September_2003)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&m d5=57d90bba6a0a3671bbe12dde6e20e75f

Shuler, John A. (2004a). New economic models for the federal depository system – Why is it so hard to get the question answered? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(3), 243-249. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC %236556%232004%23999699996%23503827%23FLA%23Volume_30,_Issue_3,_Pages_177- 261_(May_2004)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=a8 1ee826fa6ace301724dbbb9b326d5e

Shuler, John A. (2004b). Privacy and academic libraries: Widening the frame of discussion. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(2), 157-159. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey= %23TOC%236556%232004%23999699997%23490898%23FLA%23Volume_30,_Issue_2,_Pages_99- 175_(March_2004)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5= fa7f49dd959e359581e36c5ad78aea95

Shuler, John A., & Obermeyer, Nancy J. (2001). Spatial data and data centers. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(5), 391-393. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? _ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6556&_auth=y&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5 =e870a3ab955acd8f06b0ef106cb39dc9&chunk=23#23

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1988). Informing the nation: Federal information dissemination in an electronic age. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Also available at http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html

SELECTED ADDITIONAL SOURCES

Anderson, Margo J. (Ed.). (2000). Encyclopedia of the U.S. census. Washington, DC: CQ.

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 29 Aufderheide, Patricia. (1999). Communications policy and the public interest: The Telecommunications Act of 1996. New York: Guilford.

Barkley, Daniel C. (1998). Public service guidelines in an electronic environment. Government Information Quarterly, 15(1), 73-85. Also available at http://weblinks2.epnet.com/hjafdetail.asp?tb=1&_ug=dbs+3+ln+en %2Dus+sid+5631588D%2DD295%2D47A9%2D8C13%2D45E735C74DED %40Sessionmgr2+86CF&_uh=btn+N+db+buh+idb+buhish+jdb+buhjnh+op+phrase+ss+TD++%22GIQ %22+641D&_us=dstb+ES+sm+ES+99E7&st=&vw=O&rn=1&vm=open&vs=4#4

Browne, Mairéad. (1997a). The field of information policy: 1. Fundamental concepts. Journal of Information Science, 23(4), 261-275. Also available at http://www.ingenta.com/isis/shopping/cart/ShoppingCart/ingenta;jsessionid=br75g9jdnn0j.crescent

Browne, Mairéad. (1997b). The field of information policy: 2. Redefining the boundaries and methodologies. Journal of Information Science, 23(5), 339-351. Also available at http://www.ingenta.com/isis/shopping/cart/ShoppingCart/ingenta;jsessionid=br75g9jdnn0j.crescent

Burger, Robert H. (1993). Information policy: A framework for evaluation and policy research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Doty, Philip. (1998). Why study information policy? Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 39(1), 58-64.

Doty, Philip. (2001a). Digital privacy: Toward a new politics and discursive practice. In Martha E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 115-245). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Doty, Philip. (2001b). Policy analysis and networked information: “There are eight million stories . . . .” In Charles R. McClure & John Carlo Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information services: Techniques, policy, and issues (pp. 213-253). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Doty, Philip, & Erdelez, Sanda. (2002). Information micro-practices in Texas rural courts: Methods and issues for e-government. Government Information Quarterly 19(4), 369-387. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC %236542%232002%23999809995%23372664%23FLA%23Volume_19,_Issue_4,_Pages_349- 434_(2002)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=d6d7c9c 236d5235133d89453fa1f8534

Ellison, Jim. (2004). Assessing the accessibility of fifty United States government Web pages: Using Bobby to check on Uncle Sam. First Monday, 9(7). Available at http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_7/ellison/index.html

Hajnal, Peter I. (Ed.). (1997). International information: Documents, publications, and electronic information of international governmental organizations. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Heim, Kathleen. (1986). National information policy and a mandate for oversight by the information professions. Government Publications Review, 13(1), 21-37.

Hernon, Peter. (1991). Government information policy principles. Government Information Quarterly, 8(4), 393- 399. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC %236542%231991%23999919995%23335475%23FLP%23Volume_8,_Issue_4,_Pages_341- 422_(1991)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=8f9bcca be21eef689524f592baea72ce

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 30 Hernon, Peter. (1994). Information life cycle: Its place in the management of U.S. government information resources. Government Information Quarterly, 11(2), 143-170. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC %236542%231994%23999889997%23323062%23FLP%23Volume_11,_Issue_2,_Pages_137- 240_(1994)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=45d5ffa b42f24e957332fba2294cf951

Hernon, Peter, & McClure, Charles R. (1987). Federal information policies in the 1980s: Conflicts and issues. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Hernon, Peter, & McClure, Charles R. (1993). Electronic U.S. government information: Policy issues and directions. In Martha Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 45-110). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

Hernon, Peter, McClure, Charles R., & Relyea, Harold. (Eds.). (1996). Federal information policies in the 1990s: Views and perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hernon, Peter, & Relyea, Harold C. (1995). Government publishing: Past to present. Government Information Quarterly, 12(3), 309-330. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey= %23TOC%236542%231995%23999879996%23305937%23FLP%23Volume_12,_Issue_3,_Pages_243- 352_(1995)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=372709 3c0fe5a4d6fe2ad367d2fa2c8e

Hernon, Peter, & Relyea, Harold C. (1991). Information policy. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science (Vol. 48, Supp. 11, pp. 176-204). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Horwitz, Robert Britt. (1991). The irony of regulatory reform : The deregulation of American telecommunications. New York: Oxford University.

Hutto, Dena Holiman. (1996). Old solutions in a new age: Cataloguing and the future of access to government information. Journal of Government Information, 23(3), 335-344. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? _ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6054&_auth=y&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5 =007925ddb8999da5368dcbfeff667fd7&chunk=23#23

Jaeger, Paul T. (2003). The endless wire: E-government as global phenomenon. Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 323-331. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey= %23TOC%236542%232003%23999799995%23474426%23FLA%23Volume_20,_Issue_4,_Pages_323- 443_(2003)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=7df0677 733b9630f9282863eca82ebb2

Kram, Lorraine. (1998). Why continue to be a depository library if it is all on the Internet anyway? Government Information Quarterly, 15(1), 57-71. Also available at http://weblinks2.epnet.com/hjafdetail.asp? tb=1&_ug=dbs+3+ln+en%2Dus+sid+5631588D%2DD295%2D47A9%2D8C13%2D45E735C74DED %40Sessionmgr2+86CF&_uh=btn+N+db+buh+idb+buhish+jdb+buhjnh+op+phrase+ss+TD++%22GIQ %22+641D&_us=dstb+ES+sm+ES+99E7&st=&vw=O&rn=1&vm=open&vs=4#4

Lievrouw, Leah A. (Ed.). (1994a). Information resources and democracy [Special issue]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6). Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- bin/jhome/76501873

Lievrouw, Leah A. (1994b). Information resources and democracy: Understanding the paradox. In Leah A. Lievrouw (Ed.), Information resources and democracy [Special issue]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6), 350-357. Also available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- bin/jhome/76501873 Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 31 Lindblom, Charles E., & Woodhouse, Edward J. (1993). The policy-making process (3rd ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Love, James P. (1992). The marketplace and electronic government information. Government Publications Review, 19(4), 397-412.

Love, Jamie. (1994). Current issues and initiatives in the electronic dissemination of government information. In Ann P. Bishop (Ed.), Emerging communities: Integrating networked information into library services (pp. 192- 206). Champaign, IL: School of Information, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

McClure, Charles R. (1999). United States information policy. In Allen Kent (Ed.), Encyclopedia of library and information science (Vol. 65, Supp. 28, pp. 306-314). New York: Marcel Dekker.

McClure, Charles R., & Hernon, Peter. (Eds.). (1989). United States scientific and technical information policies: Views and perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

McClure, Charles R., Hernon, Peter, & Relyea, Harold C. (Eds.). (1989). United States government information policies: Views and perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mosco, Vincent. (1996). The political economy of communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mosco, Vincent, & Wasko, Janet. (Eds.). (1988). The political economy of information. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Nagel, Stuart S. (1988). Policy studies: Integration and evaluation. New York: Praeger.

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. (1982). Public sector/private sector interaction in providing information services. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Also available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/publpriv.html

National Research Council. Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Emerging Information Infrastructure. (2000). The digital dilemma: Intellectual property in the information age. Washington, DC: National Academy. Also available at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064996/html/

Overman, E. Sam, & Cahill, Anthony G. (1990). Information policy: A study of values in the policy process. Policy Studies Review, 9(4), 803-818. Also available at http://weblinks3.epnet.com/authHjafDetail.asp? tb=1&_ua=bo+B%5F+db+aphjnh+bt+ID++PYW+02E0&_ug=sid+853A28D9%2D5334%2D4BCF %2DA757%2D52E2F9BA2A5F%40sessionmgr2+dbs+aph+91B0&_us=sm+ES+E6C7&_uso=st%5B0+%2DID+ +PYW+tg%5B0+%2D+db%5B0+%2Daph+op%5B0+ %2D+hd+False+F594&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&tlog=1&lfr=Persistent+Link

Perritt, Henry H. (1994). Public information in the National Information Infrastructure. Report to the Regulatory Information Service Center, the General Services Administration, and to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

Relyea, Harold C. (1987). Public access through the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. In Peter Hernon & Charles R. McClure, Federal information policies in the 1980's: Conflicts and issues (pp. 52-82). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Relyea, Harold C. (1989). Historical development of federal information policy. In Charles R. McClure, Peter Hernon, and Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), United States government information policies: Views and perspectives (pp. 25-48). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 32 Relyea, Harold C. (1996b). National security information policy after the end of the Cold War. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.), Federal information policies in the 1990s (pp. 165-182). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Relyea, Harold C. (2001a). E-gov: The federal overview. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(2), 131-148. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC %236556%232001%23999729997%23240027%23FLA%23Volume_27,_Issue_2,_Pages_81- 167_(March_2001)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5= b49fca6a43c4cf418173b12c117a91ca

Relyea, Harold. (2002). E-gov: Introduction and overview. Government Information Quarterly, 19(1), 9-35. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC %236542%232002%23999809998%23304592%23FLA%23Volume_19,_Issue_1,_Pages_1- 97_(2002)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=806756ef 8c7a637547627177143f67ee

Relyea, Harold. (2003). Government secrecy: Policy depths and dimensions. Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 395-418. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC %236542%232003%23999799995%23474426%23FLA%23Volume_20,_Issue_4,_Pages_323- 443_(2003)&_auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5=7df0677 733b9630f9282863eca82ebb2

Rowlands, Ian. (1996). Understanding information policy: Concepts, frameworks and research tools. Journal of Information Science, 22(1), 13-25.

Sears, Jean L., & Moody, Marilyn K. (2001.) Using government information sources: Electronic and print (3rd ed.). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.

Shuler, John A. (2002e). Of Web portals, e-gov, and the public’s prints. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(6), 410-413. Also available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? _ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6556&_auth=y&_acct=C000004378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=108429&md5 =e870a3ab955acd8f06b0ef106cb39dc9&chunk=23#23

Slack, Jennifer Daryl, & Fejes, Fred. (Eds.). (1987). Ideology of the information age. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Smith, Diane H. (Ed.). (1993). Management of government information resources in libraries. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Smith, Bruce G. (2002). Federal information policy. In Allen Kent (Ed.), Encyclopedia of library and information science (Vol. 72, Supp. 35, pp. 206-217). New York: Marcel Dekker.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1986). Intellectual property rights in an age of electronics and information. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Also available at http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1986). Federal government information technology: Management, security, and congressional oversight. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Also available at http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1987). Defending secrets, sharing data. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Also available at http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 33 U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1989). Copyright & home copying: Technology challenges the law. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Also available at http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1990a). Critical connections: Communication for the future. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Also available at http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1990b). Helping America compete: The role of federal scientific and technical information. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Also available at http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1993). Making government work : Electronic delivery of federal services. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Also available at http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1994). Electronic enterprises: Looking to the future. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Also available at http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html

Warren, Samuel D., & Brandeis, Louis D. (1985). The right to privacy. In Deborah G. Johnson & John W. Snapper (Eds.), Ethical issues in the use of computers (pp. 172-183). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. (Original work published 1890)

Governmental and Commercial Serial Sources of Government Information

Code of Federal Regulations Congressional Digest Congressional Information Service Congressional Quarterly Congressional Record C[ongressional] Q[uarterly] Weekly Reports Federal Register U.S. Code U.S. Code and Congressional and Administrative News U.S. Code Annotated United States Supreme Court Reports

Journals and Other Serial Sources on Information Policy and Government Information

Administrative Notes [GPO/FDLP] Annual Review of Information Science and Technology Atlantic Monthly The Bowker Annual: Library and Book Trade Almanac Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science Communications Yearbook Documents to the People [ALA/GODORT] Electronic Public Information Newsletter EPIC [Electronic Privacy Information Center] Alert ERIC EDUCAUSE Review Federal Computer Week Government Computer News Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 34 Government Information Quarterly Government Technology Harpers Information, Communication, and Society Information Management Review Information Processing and Management The Information Society Internet Research: Electronic Networks Applications and Policy (formerly Electronic Networking: Research, Applications, and Policy) Internet World Journal of Academic Librarianship (especially its Information Policy column) Journal of the American Society for Information Science Journal of Communication Journal of Government Information: An International Review of Policy, Issues and Resources (formerly Government Publications Review) Journal of Information Science Journal of Policy Analysis and Management Journal of Policy Research The Journal of Politics Knowledge Knowledge in Society Law Library Journal Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy Philosophy and Public Affairs Policy Sciences Policy Studies Journal Policy Studies Review Privacy Journal Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting Public Administration Review Public Affairs Information Service Reference Services Review Research Policy RQ Sage Yearbook of Politics and Public Policy Science Scientific American Science and Public Policy Serials Review Technology Review Telecommunications Policy Utne Reader Wired

Newspapers

Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/ New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/ Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/ Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com

Copyright Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin -- August 2004 35