How Information Literacy Becomes Policy: An Analysis Using the Multiple Streams Framework

There is growing recognition that information literacy is a critical skill for educational and workplace success, engagement in lifelong learning, and civic participation. To be considered for allocations of financial and human resources, information literacy must become a policy priority for institutions and societies. Although there has been some progress in this area since 1974, when the term was coined, information literacy is not yet a priority for many organizations or governments. There is no published examination of factors that may influence the adoption of information literacy as a policy priority. This article explores aspects of the policy process from a U.S. perspective that can favor or impede the inclusion of information literacy on political agendas. It examines these questions through the multiple streams framework of policy processes. It proposes recommendations to help those who advocate for information literacy to effect policy changes. It identifies areas for research that would help information literacy policy advocates demonstrate need. Introduction This article considers the introduction and adoption of information literacy as public policy from a U.S. perspective using the multiple streams framework. This framework consists of the triad of problems, policies, and politics. Public policy making consists of processes that include the setting of an agenda; the identification of alternatives from which a choice can be made; an authoritative choice among those alternatives; and the implementation of a decision (Kingdon, 2003). An agenda is “the list of subjects or problems to which governmental officials, and people outside of 298 library trends/fall 2011 government closely associated with those officials, are paying some serious attention at any given time” (Kingdon, 2003, p. 3). Several factors may influence agendas: • the political events that are currently prominent (Zahariadis, 1999) • compelling societal problems (Zahariadis) • the positions of elected officials (Zahariadis) • policy specialists, who generate policy proposals as they gain new knowledge and perspectives (Kingdon, 2003) • changes in national mood and public opinion (Kingdon) • changes in governmental administration and turnover in Congress (Kingdon) The public policy process is dynamic and complex. “Policymakers frequently face dynamic and shifting environments where ambiguity is rampant and where decision outcomes appear to be beyond anyone’s control. Complexity, fluidity, and fuzziness are particularly appropriate characterizations of policy making at the national level” (Zahariadis, 1999, p. 87). There are several reasons that the process is complex. It consists of many people and groups from a variety of sectors including government agencies, legislatures, research, journalism, and the public. They have differing values, interests, perceptions, and preferences. Many existing or proposed programs are related; a policy change would, therefore, have an impact on them. “A final complicating factor in the policy process is that most disputes involve deeply held values/interests, large amounts of money, and, at some point, authoritative coercion” (Sabatier, 1999, p. 4). Studies focused on the policy process in the United States indicated that it usually took at least ten years (Sabatier). There has not yet been an examination of policy factors that may influence the adoption of information literacy as a public policy priority. What aspects of the policy process can favor or impede the inclusion of information literacy on political agendas? This article will examine this question through one political science framework. It will propose recommendations to help those who advocate for information literacy to effect policy changes. It will propose areas for research. A framework helps to identify the elements of a situation or problem and their relationships. “Frameworks organize diagnostic and prescriptive inquiry. . . . They attempt to identify the universal elements that any theory relevant to the same kind of phenomena would need to include. Many differences in surface reality can result from the way these variables combine with or interact with one another. Thus, the elements contained in a framework help analysts generate the questions that need to be addressed when they first conduct an analysis” (Ostrom, 1999, pp. 39–40). This article draws on the multiple streams framework to better understand the policy process in relation to information literacy. This understanding 299 how information literacy becomes policy/weiner can be a foundation for effective action in the future and can stimulate needed research. Multiple Streams Framework In the study of public policy formation in the United States, the multiple streams framework is one of the most popular and provocative (McLendon, 2003). Its origin was the theory of organizations developed by March (March & Simon, 1993). It can be helpful in explaining why policies gain importance on agendas or languish (Zahariadis, 1999). Multiple streams has been used to explain such public policy issues as reading (Young, Shepley, & Song, 2010); merit aid (Ness, 2010); lottery scholarships (Ness & Mistretta, 2009); college student retention (Brown, 2007); and school sports (Houlihan & Green, 2006). The only known application of multiple streams in library and information science was an examination of the policy development of the ERIC and MEDLINE databases (Weiner, 2009). Multiple streams differs from other theories of the public policy process in that it can describe relationships between policy issues and their environment, but also looks for causal linkages (McLendon, 2003). The multiple streams framework “suggests multifaceted processes in which problems, ideas, and politics combine with choice opportunities to move issues onto the decision agenda of the national government” (McLendon, p. 102). This framework can apply to a wide variety of policy arenas (Sabatier, 1999) and can be useful for describing how policies are made when there is ambiguity, lack of clarity, and lack of self-interest. The multiple streams framework can help to develop strategies (Zahariadis, 1999). Problems, Policies, and Politics Streams Kingdon identified three streams that flow through the political system: problems, policies, and politics. They are separate from each other and have individual dynamics and rules (Kingdon, 2003). Policy makers pay attention to problems because they learn about certain conditions. For instance, indicators can reveal that there is a problem and they can measure change in a problem. Evaluation studies and letters from constituents that provide feedback about existing programs can draw attention to a problem. Classifying a situation as a problem involves interpretation, perception, value judgments, and beliefs (Zahariadis, 1999). The essential aspects of ideas that become policies are that they are technically feasible and that the values they represent are acceptable to policy makers. Ideas undergo a vetting process through discussion, papers, and hearings. During this process, an idea may change, couple with another idea, or disappear (Zahariadis, 1999). The politics stream consists of the national mood, pressure group campaigns, and administrative or legislative turnover (Zahariadis, 1999). Politicians can monitor the national mood through opinion polls or interest 300 library trends/fall 2011 groups. Legislative or administrative turnover can affect agendas. “The combination of the national mood and turnover in government exerts the most powerful effect on agendas” (Zahariadis, p. 77). Serendipity and politics can cause policies to change or be reversed, depending on different combinations of problems, solutions, and politics (Zahariadis). Merging the three streams of problems, policies, and politics can greatly increase the chance that policy makers will give an issue serious attention (Kingdon, 2003). Ignoring a stream can result in an unchanged agenda (Brown, 2007).