Skip to main content

Freedom of information legislation and utilization of evaluation research: Exploring some relationships

Abstract

The basic hypothesis tested in the article is that the existence of Freedom of Information legislation in a state enhances utilization of evaluation research. The investigation of this research question leads to a tentative rejection of this hypothesis. Factors such as weak Freedom of Information Acts, unsympathetic implementation, and the lack of useful and timely information in agency-sponsored evaluations may discourage legislatures from actively using Freedom of Information provisions to obtain such studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Adie, R. F., & Thomas, P. (1987).Canadian public administration: Problematical perspective (2d ed.). Scarborough: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auditor General of Canada. (1987).Annual report for 1986. Ottawa: Supply and Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christoph, J. B. (1975). A comparative view: Administrative secrecy in Britain.Public Administration Review, 35(1), 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy. (1980).Public government for private people (Vol. 2).Freedom of Information. Toronto: Queen's Printer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congressional Research Service. (1976).Legislative oversight and program evaluation. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cost, Management and Utilization of Human Resource Program Evaluation. (1977). Hearings before the Committee on Human Resources. U. S. Senate, 95th Congress. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • Chelimsky, E. (1981). Evaluation research: Credibility and the Congress. In D. Palumbo, S. Fawcett & P. Wright (Eds.).Evaluation and optimizing public policy (pp. 177–185). Toronto: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chelimsky, E. (1984). Linking program evaluation to policy and management information needs.Optimum, 15(4), 7–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T., & Shadish, W. R. Jr. (1986). Program evaluation: The worldly science.Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 193–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., et al. (1980).Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, W. L., King, J. D., & Riddlesperger, J. W., Jr. (1981). Problems in the communication of evaluation research to policymakers. In D. Palumbo, S. Fawcett & P. Wright (Eds.),Evaluating and optimizing public policy (pp. 199–211). Toronto, Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerth, H. H. & Mills, C. W. (Eds.). (1946).From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, F. L. (1984). Towards practical rigor: Methodological and strategic condiderations for program evaluation.Optimum, 15(4), 40–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Information Commissioner of Canada. (1984)Annual report 1983–84. Ottawa: Supply and Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Information Commissioner of Canada. (1985).Annual report 1984–85. Ottawa: Supply and Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Information Commissioner of Canada. (1986).Annual report 1985–86. Ottawa: Supply and Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Information Commissioner of Canada. (1987).Annual report 1986–87. Ottawa: Supply and Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Information Commissioner of Canada. (1988).Annual report 1987–88. Ottawa: Supply and Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kash, D., & Ballard, S. (1987). Academic and applied policy studies: A comparison.American Behavioural Scientist, 30(6), 597–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacQueen, C. (1984). Linking program evaluation to decision-making.Optimum, 15(4), 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayne, J. (1986). Ongoing program performance information systems and program evaluations in the government of Canada.Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 1(1), 29–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayne, J., & Mayne, R. S. (1983). Will program evaluation be used in formulating policy. M. Atkinson & M. Chandler (Eds.),The politics of Canadian public policy (pp. 267–281). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, H. (1980).Access to information and policy-making: A comparative study. Research Publication No. 16. Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual privacy. Toronto: Queen's Printer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachmias, D. (1981). The role of evaluation in public policy. In D. Palumbo, S. Fawcett, & P. Wright (Eds.)Evaluating and optimizing public policy (pp. 155–163). Toronto: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachmias, D. & Henry, G. (1980). The utilization of evaluation research: Problems and prospects. In D. Nachmias (Ed.),The Practice of policy evaluation (pp. 461–476). New York: St. Martin's Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, C. E., Roberts, J., Maederer, C., Wertheimin, B., & Johnson, B. (1987). The utilization of social science information by policymakers.American Behavioral Scientist, 30(6), 569–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (1978).Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rankin, T. M. (1977).Freedom of information in Canada: Will the doors stay shut? Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, H. (1986). Using evaluation in the federal government.The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 1(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Relyea, H. C. (1975). Opening government to public scrutiny: A decade of federal efforts.Public Administration Review, 35(1), 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R. M. (1979). Faithful execution of the FOI Act: One executive branch experience.Public Administration Review, 39(4), 318–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P., & Freeman, H. (1982).Evaluation: A systematic approach (2d ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowat, D. (1978).Public access to government documents: A comparative perspective. Toronto: Ontario Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutman, L. (1986). Some thoughts on federal level evaluation.Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 1(1), 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutman, L. (1984). Using program evaluation to identify cost savings.Optimum, 15(4), 82–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, L.J. (1977). The social scientist and policymaking: Some cautionary thoughts and transatlantic reflections. In C. Weiss (Ed.),Using social research in public policy making (pp. 37–54). Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books/D.C. Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soper, N., Peterson, K., Maxwell, N., & Shaffron, R. (1984). Facilitating use: The Canadian experience.Optimum, 15(4), 64–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Studer, S., Spitz, B., & Burt, M. R. (1981). Optimizing legislative program evaluations. In D. Palumbo, S. Fawcett, & P. Wright (Eds.)Evaluating and optimizing public policy (pp. 165–175). Toronto: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Task Force on Program Review. (1986).Introduction to the process of program review. Ottawa: Supply and Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Vall, M. (1987). Data-based sociological practice: A professional paradigm.American Behavioural Scientist, 30(6), 644–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webber, D. (1977). Legislators' use of policy information.American Behavioral Scientist, 30(6), 612–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wholey, J. (1986) Evaluation and utilization in the U.S..Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 1(1), 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Robert Segsworth is coordinator of the diploma program in public administration at Laurentian University. Current research interests include the impact of internal and external audits upon the budgeting process.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Segsworth, R.V. Freedom of information legislation and utilization of evaluation research: Exploring some relationships. Knowledge in Society 2, 49–61 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02687233

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02687233

Keywords

  • Evaluation Study
  • Program Evaluation
  • Evaluation Research
  • Executive Branch
  • Lexington Book