INF 390.1 School of Information Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty

WHAT IS [PUBLIC] POLICY?

 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?"

 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 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." INF 390.1 School of Information 1 Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty 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:

 a systematic application of human ingenuity and democratic values  a recognition of the key role of social conflict  concerted negotiation among all those affected  reorganisation of public and private resources, and  reconsideration of the values which determine the allocation of those resources."

(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 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, 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. Policy is an assertion of intents or goals. 2. Policy is the accumulated standing decisions of a governing body . . . within its sphere of authority. 3. Policy is a guide to discretionary action. 4. Policy is a strategy undertaken to solve or ameliorate a problem. 5. Policy is sanctioned behavior, formally . . . or informally through expectations and acceptance established over (sanctified by) time. 6. Policy is a norm of conduct characterized by consistency and regularity in some substantive action area. 7. Policy is the output of the policy-making system. 8. Policy is the effect of the policy-making and policy-implementing system as it is experienced by the client.

INF 390.1 School of Information 2 Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty A useful integrating concept of policy for our purposes:

 Selecting goals

 Selecting means of achieving them

 In the context of conflicting interests and stakeholders

 In the government, public action undertaken to resolve areas of public contention or dissensus (= issue), especially about values and means of supporting them.

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 390.1 School of Information 3 Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty SOME "DEFINITIONS" OF INFORMATION POLICY

Chartrand (1986) -- a topical approach. Information policy encompasses: federal information resources management (IRM); information technology for education, innovation, and competitiveness; telecommunications, broadcasting, and satellite transmissions; international communications and information policy; information disclosure, confidentiality, and the right to privacy; computer regulation and crime; intellectual property; library and archives policy; and government information systems, clearinghouses, and dissemination

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."

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 390.1 School of Information 4 Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty 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:

 access and freedom: the assumption of democracy;  privacy: the preservation of personal rights;  openness: the public's right to know;  usefulness: the pragmatist's creed;  cost and benefit: the bureaucratic necessity;  secrecy and security: the authoritative cloak; and  ownership: the notion of intellectual property.

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. Value-critical 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 390.1 School of Information 5 Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty

APPROACHES TO POLICY ANALYSIS

WHY STUDY PUBLIC POLICY? (Dye, 1995, 8th ed., pp. 4-6)

1. For scientific understanding -- understanding the causes and consequences of policy decisions improves our knowledge of society.

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.

Questions in policy analysis -- "What can we learn about public policy?":

1. Describe public policy -- a factual basis for understanding

2. Inquire about the causes, or determinants, of public policy

3. Inquire about the consequences, or impacts, of public policy.

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 catalyze “debate” about social problems and policy decisions (viii)

 To improve political interaction, "not to substitute for it" (p. 127)

 To increase informed participation in social decision making beyond social elites (p. 137)

 To break the mold of the majoritarian consensus (p. 142)

And the policy analyst must be especially alert to power relationships.

INF 390.1 School of Information 6 Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty MORE CONSIDERATIONS OF WHAT PUBLIC POLICY IS

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. We should distinguish between what governments intend to do and what they do. 2. Study should include consideration of informal actors. 3. Public policy is not limited to formal instruments like orders and regulations. 4. "[A]n intentional course of action with an accomplished goal as its objective." 5. "[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)

 Kingdon (1995) on agenda setting.

1. "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) 2. Agenda setting is a "garbage can," combining streams of problems, politics, and other elements. 3. Policy ideas are combined and recombined over years by "policy communities" of specialists and decision makers. 4. Policy entrepreneurs link ideas to decision makers -- these entrepreneurs expend their own resources to promote ideas. 5. There are "policy windows" which are structural opportunities for ideas to become part of the agenda.

 Lindblom (1995) on the "science" of muddling through, originally published in 1959:

1. "[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) 2. Usually there is a great deal of disagreement among all parties about values and objectives, as well as the relative merits of policy alternatives. 3. "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 390.1 School of Information 7 Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty NATURE OF POLICY RESEARCH/ANALYSIS

In her book on policy research methods, Majchrzak (1984, p. 102) says:

Policy Analysis is research done by political scientists interested in the process by which policies are adopted and the effects of the policies once adopted.

Policy Research is the process of conducting research or analysis on a fundamental social problem in order to provide policymakers with pragmatic, action-oriented recommendations for alleviating the problem.

I, like many other policy analysts, 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, action-oriented recommendations for alleviating the problem." (p. 12)

We can question this "problem-oriented, technicist" approach.

 "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:

(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; (4) the research question should exhibit policy responsiveness by addressing issues in a manner that will help policymakers act on the social problem. (p. 52)

INF 390.1 School of Information 8 Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty MORE ON THE NATURE OF POLICY RESEARCH/ANALYSIS -- PER DOTY

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

 Only one of many factors in a policy decision

 Often concerned with DEFINITION, not "solution," of a social conflict

 Often inherently controversial

 Dependent on the academic discipline of the researcher/analyst and its assumptions about:

1. What questions are answerable

2. What answers are acceptable/reasonable/feasible

3. What methods of investigation and presentation are appropriate

4. What forms of evidence are convincing

5. What kinds of rhetoric are most persuasive and most appropriate for policy argumentation

6. What role policy analysis should play in policy formation

7. Which stakeholders are of primary importance

8. Why an analyst does an analysis

INF 390.1 School of Information 9 Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty SKILLS NEEDED BY THE POLICY ANALYST

(Doty, 1998; some from House, 1982; Ballard et al., 1981; and Majchrzak, 1984)

 Ability to communicate well in writing and orally  Management skills -- to write and evaluate proposals and research studies, to manage personnel, to prepare and follow budgets, and to develop and adhere to realistic schedules  Problem solving abilities -- to combine creativity, intelligence, experience, and responsiveness to others and the environment  Contacts -- with policy makers and their staffs, with other analysts, with citizens, and with important interest groups in the private and public sectors  Political understanding -- an appreciation of stakeholders' limitations and constraints, the context for decision making, and the importance of precedent in public life  A vision for the implementation of policy recommendations  Skills in consensus building and cooperative work, often in interdisciplinary and stressful situations  Ability to recognize and analyze a moving target  Appropriate academic training in concepts, methods, data handling, and so on  Experience in decision-making  An ability to combine microscopic and macroscopic views of the problem, especially to develop and use an understanding of the contexts of policy issues  Experience in the use of both qualitative and quantitative research techniques  Ability to create and articulate clear models and constructs to a variety of stakeholders and audiences.

But we get a warning from Lindblom and Woodhouse (1993, pp. 5-10) that there are four major influences on policy making and policy analysis that are often ignored in positivistic, "linear" models of policy making:

1. Conceptual and cognitive limitations 2. Tension between rationalism and the political process 3. Influence of business 4. Social inequity, since differential power relationships are an essential environmental factor.

Therefore, the analyst must "challenge fundamental features of politics, economics, and culture" (p. 136). Do you agree or disagree? Why?

INF 390.1 School of Information 10 Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty MULTIPLE ROLES OF THE SOCIAL SCIENTIST

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. Information processor -- "selecting, integrating, and synthesizing existing knowledge about particular problems, impacts, and policy alternatives" (p. 181); NOT synonymous with a lit review, rather applying knowledge from a variety of disciplinary and stakeholder perspectives

3. Disciplinary scholar -- "the researcher as scholar/practitioner" (p. 182), grounded in one's discipline (especially methods and criteria of quality, e.g., reliability and validity), but able to go beyond disciplinary boundaries because policy problems are not in neat disciplinary niches

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 390.1 School of Information 11 Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty INFORMATION POLICY VALUES

From Overman & Cahill (1990) on value in information policy analysis.

"The analysis of information policy documents produces a list of seven primary information policy values:

• access and freedom: the assumption of democracy; • privacy: the preservation of personal rights; • openness: the public's right to know; • usefulness: the pragmatist's creed; • cost and benefit: the bureaucratic necessity; • secrecy and security: the authoritative cloak; and • ownership: the notion of intellectual property."

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

Restrictive Distributive

V Usefulness Access a Cost and Benefit Freedom l Secrecy and Security Privacy (access) u Ownership Openness e Privacy (protection) s

INF 390.1 School of Information 12 Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty

TRADITONAL MODELS OF “THE POLICY PROCESS”

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 What is the problem to which this proposal is directed?

2. Aggregation How many people think it is an important problem?

3. Organization How well organized are these people?

4. Representation How is access to decision makers maintained?

5. Agenda setting How is agenda status achieved?

6. Formulation What is the proposed solution? Who developed it and how?

7. Legitimation Who supports it[,] and how is majority support maintained?

8. Budgeting How much money is provided? Is it perceived as sufficient?

9. Implementation Who administers it[,] and how do they maintain support?

10. Evaluation Who judges its achievements and by what methods?

11. Adjustment/ termination What adjustments have been made[,] and how did they come about?

• Theodoulou, Stella Z. (1995b, pp. 86-87) on how public policy is made:

1. Problem recognition

2. Policy adoption

3. Policy implementation

4. Policy analysis and evaluation

INF 390.1 School of Information 13 Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty 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.

Browne, Mairéad. (1997a). The field of information policy: 1. Fundamental concepts. Journal of Information Science, 23(4), 261-275. Also available at http://jis.sagepub.com/content/vol23/issue4/

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://jis.sagepub.com/content/vol23/issue5/

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. CD

Dye, Thomas R. (1995). Understanding public policy (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

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.

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.

INF 390.1 School of Information 14 Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty 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 published 1959.

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. Martin’s.

Overman, E. Sam, & Cahill, Anthony G. (1990). Information policy: A study of values in the policy process. Policy Studies Review, 9(4), 803-818.

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. CD

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: Prentice-Hall.

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 390.1 School of Information 15 Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty INF 390.1 School of Information 16 Federal Information Policy University of Texas - Austin Philip Doty