Note to Users

NOTE TO USERS This reproduction is the best 'copy available UMI CANADA'S COALITION FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION: A CASE STUDY OF A PUBLIC INTEREST GROUP LN THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY POLICY-MAKING PROCESS Cheryl Cowan Buchwald A thesis submitted in confonnity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Information Studies University of Toronto 0 Copyright by Cheryl Cowan Buchwald, 1999 National Library Bibliothèque nationale 1+1 ofCanada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliogrâphic Services seMces bibliographiques 395 Weilington Street 395, rue Wellington ûttawa ON K1A ON4 OnawaON K1AON4 Canada canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or eiectronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fkom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author' s ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. CANADA'S COALITION FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION: A CASE STUDY OF A PUBLIC INTEREST GROUP IN THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY POLICY- MAKING PROCESS Doctor of Philosophy, 1999 Cheryl Cowan Buchwald Faculty of Information Studies University of Toronto ABSTRACT The purpose of this research was to investigate the role of Canada's Coalition for Public Monnation (CPI)in the federal information policy-making process for the information highway. CPI, formed in 1993, was an initiative of the Ontario Library Association that attracted a broad constituency of information professionals and individuals concemed about information and technology issues. CPI believed that information policy decisions leading to major economic and social consequences would emanate from the information highway debate and that integration of the public perspective into new information policy was therefore irnperative. This study used as its framework two public policy models to build an understanding of events, context, stakeholders, strategies, and influence: the policy process mode1 developed by John Kingdon, and the policy comrnunity mode1 described by William Coleman and Grace Skogstad and by Paul Pross. The investigation followed the example of naturalistic methods including grounded theory, and data organization and analysis via NUD*IST software. Mer 2 H years of data gathering and analysis, the researcher concluded that, despite its efforts, CPI had exercised little infiuence over policy outcornes. CPI remained outside the decision-making network of govemment officiais and private sector representatives owing to its limited resources, its limited political experience, and its late entry into the policy process. Policy makers, convinced of the necessity for instituting the private sector values of market competition and deregulation, essentially ignored CPl's publicly oriented agenda in their information highway policy. However, CPI did succeed in helping to bring a perspective other than the market agenda to the public, to the policy community, and to policy makers. CPI contributed to the process by educating the public, the govemment, and the pnvate sector to access and other information highway policy issues. Although CPI has leamed a great deal that it can use to its advantage in the future, the group continues to work toward establishing itself as a significant player within an institutional stnicture that does not favour public interest groups. In order to increase its effectiveness as a public interest watchdog in such a setting, CPI must secure adequate resources and continue to increase its expertise through exposure to the policy process. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of this thesis marks the end of a happy and satisfying period of my iife. To be offered the opportunity to pursue a persona1 interest for a number of years was a great gift from my community and from those who supponed me throughout the process. The faculty and staff at the Facuity of Information Studies guided me through both my Masters and my PhD during the past decade. My fellow PhD students not only shared the good times but ais0 helped me through the not-so-good moments. Members of the steenng committee of Canada's Coalition for Public Information indulged my request that they be observed for my research and made me feel welcome in the group, even though they were not sure what the outcome rnight be. 1 was immensely fortunate to be directed by a committee that made meetings a pleasure to attend. My supervisor, Professor Joanne Marshall, allowed me my independence but was always available when 1needed advice. Professor Grace Skogstad's research in policy community theory provided me with a theoretical frarnework for my study and ultimately with an eminent committee member in the field. She generously gave of her time and knowledge as 1 explored public policy for the first tirne. Professor Ethel Auster's encouragement and practical advice never let me down. On the home front, my husband, Manuel Buchwald, convinced me that 1 was capable of succeeding at a feat such as this and his support never faltered throughout my studies. 1 can even boast that he is one amongst what 1 am sure is a tiny minority of spouses who have read al1 of their panner's papers, thesis included. Without him I never would have embarked on this adventure and 1 offer him my gratitude and love for always seeing the best in me. Finally, 1 dedicate this work to my father, Professor Ralph Cowan, who inspired me with his respect for education at any age and with his courage and determination in completing his PhD in his late 40s. Until his death, rny thesis was a fùnher bond between us and he derived a great deal of pleasure in playing the role of my unseen fourth committee member. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................ii Acknowiedgements ...................................................... iv List of Figures .......................................................... ix Glossary of Acronyms .................................................... x INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research Context: Information Highway Policy and the Coalition for Public Information ..................................1 1.2 Research Goals and Objectives ...................................5 1.3 Research Design ..............................................7 1.4 Scholarly and Practical Significance ...............................8 1.5 Outline of Thesis ............................................11 METHODOLOGY Introduction ................................................14 Conceptual Framework ....................................... 14 2.2.1 The Naturalistic Paradigm ................................ 15 2.2.2 Qualitative Methodology ................................. 18 2.2.3 Case Study ...........................................20 2.2.4 Participant Observation ..................................21 2.2.5 Grounded Theory ......................................23 2.2.6 Extended Case Method ..................................24 Research Design .............................................25 2.3.1 Research Questions .....................................26 2.3 -2 Researcher Expectations ................................. 27 2.3.3 Entrée to CPI ......................................... 28 2.3.4 Data Collection ........................................31 2.3.4.1 Panicipant Observation ..........: ............... 32 2.3.4.2 Field Notes ................................... 33 2.3.4.3 Interviews ....................................34 2.3.4.4 Documents ...................................38 2.3.4.5 Recording Protocol ............................. 39 2.3.5 Data Analysis .........................................40 2.3.5.1 Unit king and Categorizing the Data ................ 40 2.3.5.2 Memos ...................................... 43 2.3.6 Closure .............................................. 45 Trustworthiness ............................................. 45 Ethical Concems ............................................ 48 2.6 Conclusion ................................................. 49 3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 3.1 Introduction ................................................50 3.2 Public Policy ................................................51 3.3 Cultural Context: Values, Needs, and Rights .......................52 3.3.1 Values ..............................................53 3.3.2 Needs ...............................................55 3.3.3 Rights ...............................................55 3.4 Economic and Power Theories ..................................57 3.4.1 Perspectives on Public and Private Goods .................... 57 3.4.2 Low and High Incentive Groups ...........................59 3.4.3 Exercising Power ......................................62 3.5 Institutional Models ..........................................65 3 .5 . 1 Policy Community Theory ................................ 65 3.5.2 Policy Network Theory .................................. 69 3 53 Interest Group Theory ..................................71 3.6 Policy Process Models .......................................

Load more