Home | Browse | Search | Credits | About
Register | User Area | DL-Harvest | Help
DLIST

What Public Information Should Government Agencies Publish? A Comparison of Controversial Web-Based Government Information

Eschenfelder, Kristin R. and Miller, Clark A. (2006) What Public Information Should Government Agencies Publish? A Comparison of Controversial Web-Based Government Information.

There is a more recent version of this eprint available. Click here to view it.

Full text available as:
Microsoft Word Document (.doc) - Requires Microsoft Word

Abstract

This paper develops a framework to assess the public information provided on program level government agency Websites. The framework incorporates three views of government information obligations stemming from different assumptions about citizen roles in a democracy: the private citizen view, the attentive citizen view, and the deliberative citizen view. The framework is employed to assess state Websites containing controversial policy information about chronic wasting disease, a disease effecting deer and elk in numerous U.S. states and Canada. Using the framework as a guide, the paper considers what information agencies should provide given the three different views of government information obligations. The paper then outlines the costs and benefits of fulfilling each view of government information obligations including issues of limited resources, perceived openness and credibility, press coverage, and policy making control.

EPrint Type:Preprint
Keywords:government information; website evaluation; openness
Subjects:Social Informatics
ID Code:1033
Deposited On:11 January 2006
Eprint Statistics:View statistics for this eprint
Tell A Colleague:Tell a colleague about it.

1. Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

2. Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

3. Hernon, P., Relyea, H., Dugan, R., & Cheverie, J. (2002). United States Government Information: Policies and Sources. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

4. Office of Management and Budget Information Quality Guidelines (Office of Management and Budget October 2002)

5. Walters, J. (2005). U.S. Government Publication: Ideological Development and Institutional Politics From the Founding to 1970. Lanham MD: Scarecrow Press.

6. Sprehe, T. (1987). OMB Circular No. A-130, the Management of Federal Information Resouces: Its Origins and Impact. Government Information Quarterly, 4(2), 189-196.

7. Eschenfelder, K., Beachboard, J., & McClure, C., Wyman. (1997). Assessing U.S. Federal Government Websites. Government Information Quarterly, 14(2), 173-190.

8. La Porte, T., Demchak, C., & de Jong, M. (2002). Democracy and Bureaucracy in the Age of the Web: Empirical Findings and Theoretical Speculations. Administration and Society, 34(4), 411-446.

9. Lee, M. (2004). E-Reporting: Strengthening Democratic Accountability. Washington DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

10. West, D. (2002). State and Federal E-Government in the United States, 2002. Center for Public Policy, Brown University.

11. Saltzstein, G. (1992). Bureaucratic Responsiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(1), 63-88.

12. Earle, T., & Cvetkovich, G. (1995). Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

13. Lippman, W. (1997). Public Opinion. New York: Free Press Paperbacks.

14. Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

15. Covello, V., McCallum, D., & Pavlova, M. (1987). Effective Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. New York: Plenum Press.

16. Jasanoff, S. (1994). The fifth branch : Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

17. National Research Council. (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

18. Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstood Misunderstandings: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science. In Alan Irwin and Brian Wynne (Ed.), Misunderstanding science? : The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

19. National Research Council. (1996).

20. Bosque, P. (2005, July 2005). Can Humans Contract Chronic Wasting Disease. In CWD and Other Species. The Second International Chronic Wasting Disease Symposium, Madison, Wisconsin.

21. APHIS. (2004). Questions and Answers about Chronic Wasting Disease. Retrieved July 2004, from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/faq_ahcwd.html.

22. Bishop, R. (2004). The Economic Impacts of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in Wisconsin. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(3), 181-192.

23. Needham, M., Vaske, J., & Manfredo, M. (2004). Hunters' Behavior and Acceptance of Management Actions Related to Chronic Wasting Disease in Eight States. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(3), 211-232.

24. Seidl, A., & Koontz, S. (2004). Potential Economic Impacts of Chronic Wasting Disease in Colorado. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(3), 241-245.

25. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2004). Progress Report on the Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies and Tribes in Managing Chronic Wasting Disease in Wild and Captive Cervids.

26. U.S. Department of Agriculture (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)). (2002). CWD Task Force. In Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing Chronic Wasting Disease in Wild and Captive Cervids (Agency Task Force Report). Washington DC: US. Department of Agriculture.

27. Covello, V., McCallum, D., & Pavlova, M. (1987).

28. Nye, J., Zelikow, P., & King, D. (1997). Why People Don't Trust Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

29. Metzger, M., Flanagin, A., Eyal, K., Lemus, D., & McCann, R. (2003). Credibility for the 21st Century: Integrating Perspectives on Source, Message, and Media Credibility in the Contemporary Media Environment. Communications Yearbook, 27, 293-335.

30. State of Wisconsin Conservation Department (Deer Research Project). (1943). Wisconsin's Deer Problem: Wisconsin Deer Today and Tommorow. In Publication 321. Wisconsin Deer Today and Tommorow). Madison Wisconsin: Author.

31. Needham, M., Vaske, J., & Manfredo, M. (2005). Hunters' response to chronic wasting disease: Regaional and state specific results (Project Report for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies No. Report Number 56). Fort Collins: Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit.

32. Vaske, J., Timmons, N., Beaman, J., & Petchenik, J. (2004). Chronic Wasting Disease in Wisconsin: Hunter Behavior, Perceived Risk, and Agency Trust. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(3), 193-210.

33. Yudof, M. (1983). When Government Speaks: Politics, Law, and Government Expression in America. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.

34. Tussman, J. (1977). Government and the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.

35. Bastian, F., Dash, S., & Garry, R. (2004). Linking chronic wasting disease to scrapie by comparison of spiroplasma mirium ribosomal DNA sequences. Experimental and Molecular Pathology, 77, 49-56.

36. Joly, D. O. (2005, July 2005). An Overview of Logistical, Theoretical, and Statistical Isues Surrounding Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance. In D. Heisey & D. Joly (Chair), CWD Surveillance Issues. The Second International Chronic Wasting Disease Symposium, Madison, Wisconsin.

37. Clark, W., Nusser, S., & Huang, L. O., D.L. (2005, July 2005). Evaluating Sampling Approaches for Monitoring Chronic Wasting Disease in Deer Populations. In D. Heisey & D. Joly (Chair), CWD Surveillance Issues. The Second International Chronic Wasting Disease Symposium, Madison, Wisconsin.

38. Heberlein, T. (2004). "Fire in the Sistine Chapel": How Wisconsin Responded to Chronic Wasting Disease. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(3), 165-180.

39. APHIS. (2004).

40. U.S. Department of the Interior. (2001). National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. FHW/01-WI Rev..

41. Friedman, S., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. (1999). Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

42. Needham, et al. (2004); Needham, et al. (2005).

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid.

45. Lee, M. (2004).

46. National Research Council. (1996).

47. National Research Council. (1989). Improving Risk Communication. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

48. Covello, V., McCallum, D., & Pavlova, M. (1987).

49. National Research Council. (1996).

50. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (2003). External Review of Chronic Wasting Disease Management in Wisconsin (L. H. C. John R. Fischer, R. Larry Marchinton, Trans.) (A Report to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/whealth/issues/cwd/prog_rev.pdf.

51. Ferber, P., Foltz, F., & Pugliese. (2003). The Politics of State Legislature Web Sites: Making E-Government More Participatory. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 23(3), 157-167.

52. Sadofsky, D. (1990). Knowledge as Power: Political and Legal Control of Information. New York: Praeger.

53. Covello, V., McCallum, D., & Pavlova, M. (1987).

54. Epstein, S. (1996). Impure Science: Aids, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

55. Needham, et al. (2005).

56. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

57. Zucker, L. (1987). Institutional Theories of Organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443-464.

58. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields”. American Sociological Review, 48, 174-160.

59. Trumbo, C. (1995). Longitudinal Modeling of Public Issues: An Application of the Agenda-Setting Process to the Issue of Global Warming. Journalism and Mass Communication Monographs, 152, 1-27.

60. Yanovitzky, I. (2002). Effects of News Coverage on Policy Attention and Actions: A Closer Look Into the Media-Policy Connection. Communications Research, 29(4), 422-451.

61. Hiebert, R. (1981). A Model of the Government Communications Process. In L. Helm, R. Hiebert & M. R. Naver, K. (Eds.), Informing the People: A Public Affairs Handbook (pp. 3-13). New York: Longman.

62. Sadofsky, D. (1990).

63. Griffin, & Dunwoody. (1997). Science Communication, 18(4), 362-384.

64. Jasanoff, S., & Martello, M. (2004). Earthly politics : Local and global in environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

65. Bimber, B. (2003).

66. Fountain, J. E. (2001).

67. Eschenfelder, K. (2004). Behind the Web Site: A Field Study of the Management of Textual Content on State Agency Web Sites. Government Information Quarterly, 21, 337-358.

68. Eschenfelder, K. (2004). How Do Government Agencies Manage the Text Content on their Web Sites? A Framework to Compare Web Content Management Practices. Library and Information Science Research, 26(4).

69. Pusateri, J. (2005, July 2005). Preparedness and Capacity of Agencies to Manage Chronic Wasting Disease. In J. Petchenik & J. Vaske (Chair), Human Dimensions. The Second International Chronic Wasting Disease Symposium, Madison, Wisconsin.

70. Needham, et al. (2005).

71. Bimber, B. (2003).

72. Burkell, J. (2004). What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(2), 200-208.

Available Versions of this Item

EPrints dLIST, an open access archive for the Information Sciences, is supported by the School of Information Resources and Library Science and Learning Technologies Center, University of Arizona. Established in 2002, dLIST has a global Advisory Board and is a part of the Information Technology & Society Research Lab. Open Archives
Contact: Admin | Donate