{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/89113"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/89113","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Deliberating environmental policy: information seeking and use in Canada's House of Commons standing committees","abstract":"This case study examines the information practices of Canada’s elected federal representatives who work together within House of Commons standing committees to deliberate environmental issues. We now have new methods to access data on government activities due to the availability of more structured government information online and the work of the open data movement. These resources help to shed new light not just on what policy makers claim they are doing, but what their observable actions demonstrate. It is well understood and well documented that scientific research evidence does not, in and of itself, direct the development of science-related legislation or regulation. Particularly in the context of democratic governance, the role of such information is continually weighed against potentially conflicting economic, political, infrastructural, and constituent considerations. But a question that remains is when do we see scientific information playing a more central role in policy considerations, and when less? Relative to other kinds of input, are systematic patterns evident? This dissertation compares the deliberative consultation practices of committees that studied environmental issues over three recent parliamentary sessions. It analyzes the patterns and nature of sources consulted and begins to ascertain the place of scientific expertise within this mix. Problem structure and framing typologies are applied as a means of examining the role of political context and values in source selection. Results show that committees verbally make distinctions between stakeholder sources and expert sources, however in practice they do not observe the same distinctions when evaluating the information that different sources provide. When studying controversial topics, committees seemed to consider an objective examination of information to involve consulting a numerical balance of sources among politically conflicting source types. Committees whose mandates focus on environmental policy oversight generally sought a greater proportion of scientific information sources per study than committees with economic imperatives. At the individual study level, studies framed as economic problems generally relied less on science sources regardless of committee or type of government, and more on industry sources. By contrast studies framed in terms of scientific uncertainty or public accountability consulted fewer industry science sources and relied more on academic or government science sources respectively. During the majority government period a much more limited set of value frames were evident, with an economic frame applied to more than half the environmental policy studies. Across government periods, the proportion of science sources drawn from lobbyist and government networks is negatively associated with the length of a study. This may be explained by the difference in the nature of the problems examined during shorter and longer studies. As deliberative information environments, committees are expected to serve multiple purposes. In practice the result is that the system’s stated aim of assessing information in-depth as a mechanism for improving policy may conflict with other democratic or politically strategic aims.","abstract_html":"This case study examines the information practices of Canada’s elected federal representatives who work together within House of Commons standing committees to deliberate environmental issues. We now have new methods to access data on government activities due to the availability of more structured government information online and the work of the open data movement. These resources help to shed new light not just on what policy makers claim they are doing, but what their observable actions demonstrate. It is well understood and well documented that scientific research evidence does not, in and of itself, direct the development of science-related legislation or regulation. Particularly in the context of democratic governance, the role of such information is continually weighed against potentially conflicting economic, political, infrastructural, and constituent considerations. But a question that remains is when do we see scientific information playing a more central role in policy considerations, and when less? Relative to other kinds of input, are systematic patterns evident? This dissertation compares the deliberative consultation practices of committees that studied environmental issues over three recent parliamentary sessions. It analyzes the patterns and nature of sources consulted and begins to ascertain the place of scientific expertise within this mix. Problem structure and framing typologies are applied as a means of examining the role of political context and values in source selection. Results show that committees verbally make distinctions between stakeholder sources and expert sources, however in practice they do not observe the same distinctions when evaluating the information that different sources provide. When studying controversial topics, committees seemed to consider an objective examination of information to involve consulting a numerical balance of sources among politically conflicting source types. Committees whose mandates focus on environmental policy oversight generally sought a greater proportion of scientific information sources per study than committees with economic imperatives. At the individual study level, studies framed as economic problems generally relied less on science sources regardless of committee or type of government, and more on industry sources. By contrast studies framed in terms of scientific uncertainty or public accountability consulted fewer industry science sources and relied more on academic or government science sources respectively. During the majority government period a much more limited set of value frames were evident, with an economic frame applied to more than half the environmental policy studies. Across government periods, the proportion of science sources drawn from lobbyist and government networks is negatively associated with the length of a study. This may be explained by the difference in the nature of the problems examined during shorter and longer studies. As deliberative information environments, committees are expected to serve multiple purposes. In practice the result is that the system’s stated aim of assessing information in-depth as a mechanism for improving policy may conflict with other democratic or politically strategic aims.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Bloch, Naomi"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Library & Information Science","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Bruce, Bertram C","Smith, Linda C","Haythornthwaite, Caroline","Gasser, Les"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2016,"date_issued":"2016-03-02T20:23:29Z","date_published":"2016-03-02T20:23:29Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:32Z","subjects":["Public deliberation","Information behavior","Environmental policy"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright 2015 Naomi Bloch"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/89113","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Bruce, Bertram C","Smith, Linda C","Haythornthwaite, Caroline","Gasser, Les"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Bloch, Naomi"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2016-03-02T20:23:29Z","2018-03-03T10:15:14Z","2015-11-17","2015-12"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Library & Information Science"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Public deliberation","Information behavior","Environmental policy"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 2015 Naomi Bloch"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/89113"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["This case study examines the information practices of Canada’s elected federal representatives who work together within House of Commons standing committees to deliberate environmental issues. We now have new methods to access data on government activities due to the availability of more structured government information online and the work of the open data movement. These resources help to shed new light not just on what policy makers claim they are doing, but what their observable actions demonstrate. It is well understood and well documented that scientific research evidence does not, in and of itself, direct the development of science-related legislation or regulation. Particularly in the context of democratic governance, the role of such information is continually weighed against potentially conflicting economic, political, infrastructural, and constituent considerations. But a question that remains is when do we see scientific information playing a more central role in policy considerations, and when less? Relative to other kinds of input, are systematic patterns evident? This dissertation compares the deliberative consultation practices of committees that studied environmental issues over three recent parliamentary sessions. It analyzes the patterns and nature of sources consulted and begins to ascertain the place of scientific expertise within this mix. Problem structure and framing typologies are applied as a means of examining the role of political context and values in source selection. Results show that committees verbally make distinctions between stakeholder sources and expert sources, however in practice they do not observe the same distinctions when evaluating the information that different sources provide. When studying controversial topics, committees seemed to consider an objective examination of information to involve consulting a numerical balance of sources among politically conflicting source types. Committees whose mandates focus on environmental policy oversight generally sought a greater proportion of scientific information sources per study than committees with economic imperatives. At the individual study level, studies framed as economic problems generally relied less on science sources regardless of committee or type of government, and more on industry sources. By contrast studies framed in terms of scientific uncertainty or public accountability consulted fewer industry science sources and relied more on academic or government science sources respectively. During the majority government period a much more limited set of value frames were evident, with an economic frame applied to more than half the environmental policy studies. Across government periods, the proportion of science sources drawn from lobbyist and government networks is negatively associated with the length of a study. This may be explained by the difference in the nature of the problems examined during shorter and longer studies. As deliberative information environments, committees are expected to serve multiple purposes. In practice the result is that the system’s stated aim of assessing information in-depth as a mechanism for improving policy may conflict with other democratic or politically strategic aims.","Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'U of I Access', the embargo will last until 2017-12-01","The student, Naomi Bloch, accepted the attached license on 2015-11-15 at 06:18.","The student, Naomi Bloch, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2015-11-15 at 06:35.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2015-11-17 at 09:24.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #8786 on 2016-03-02 at 14:05:49","Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-02T20:23:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 BLOCH-DISSERTATION-2015.pdf: 8902228 bytes, checksum: 878f194b95b418bdead6864c841cfa04 (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4208 bytes, checksum: d604aa67558c27c2ef43ff3f5702b02b (MD5) Permission to reproduce committee proceedings.pdf: 133504 bytes, checksum: b5662a2bfc89a0850d9ab11fd66ac672 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-11-17","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 91315 Lift date: 2018-03-02T20:24:31Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","U of I Only Restriction Lifted for Item 91315 on 2018-03-03T10:15:14Z.","https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4193-2408"]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Deliberating environmental policy: information seeking and use in Canada's House of Commons standing committees"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Bruce, Bertram C","Smith, Linda C","Haythornthwaite, Caroline","Gasser, Les"],"dc:creator":["Bloch, Naomi"],"dc:date":["2016-03-02T20:23:29Z","2018-03-03T10:15:14Z","2015-11-17","2015-12"],"dc:description":["This case study examines the information practices of Canada’s elected federal representatives who work together within House of Commons standing committees to deliberate environmental issues. We now have new methods to access data on government activities due to the availability of more structured government information online and the work of the open data movement. These resources help to shed new light not just on what policy makers claim they are doing, but what their observable actions demonstrate. It is well understood and well documented that scientific research evidence does not, in and of itself, direct the development of science-related legislation or regulation. Particularly in the context of democratic governance, the role of such information is continually weighed against potentially conflicting economic, political, infrastructural, and constituent considerations. But a question that remains is when do we see scientific information playing a more central role in policy considerations, and when less? Relative to other kinds of input, are systematic patterns evident? This dissertation compares the deliberative consultation practices of committees that studied environmental issues over three recent parliamentary sessions. It analyzes the patterns and nature of sources consulted and begins to ascertain the place of scientific expertise within this mix. Problem structure and framing typologies are applied as a means of examining the role of political context and values in source selection. Results show that committees verbally make distinctions between stakeholder sources and expert sources, however in practice they do not observe the same distinctions when evaluating the information that different sources provide. When studying controversial topics, committees seemed to consider an objective examination of information to involve consulting a numerical balance of sources among politically conflicting source types. Committees whose mandates focus on environmental policy oversight generally sought a greater proportion of scientific information sources per study than committees with economic imperatives. At the individual study level, studies framed as economic problems generally relied less on science sources regardless of committee or type of government, and more on industry sources. By contrast studies framed in terms of scientific uncertainty or public accountability consulted fewer industry science sources and relied more on academic or government science sources respectively. During the majority government period a much more limited set of value frames were evident, with an economic frame applied to more than half the environmental policy studies. Across government periods, the proportion of science sources drawn from lobbyist and government networks is negatively associated with the length of a study. This may be explained by the difference in the nature of the problems examined during shorter and longer studies. As deliberative information environments, committees are expected to serve multiple purposes. In practice the result is that the system’s stated aim of assessing information in-depth as a mechanism for improving policy may conflict with other democratic or politically strategic aims.","Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'U of I Access', the embargo will last until 2017-12-01","The student, Naomi Bloch, accepted the attached license on 2015-11-15 at 06:18.","The student, Naomi Bloch, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2015-11-15 at 06:35.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2015-11-17 at 09:24.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #8786 on 2016-03-02 at 14:05:49","Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-02T20:23:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 BLOCH-DISSERTATION-2015.pdf: 8902228 bytes, checksum: 878f194b95b418bdead6864c841cfa04 (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4208 bytes, checksum: d604aa67558c27c2ef43ff3f5702b02b (MD5) Permission to reproduce committee proceedings.pdf: 133504 bytes, checksum: b5662a2bfc89a0850d9ab11fd66ac672 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-11-17","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 91315 Lift date: 2018-03-02T20:24:31Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","U of I Only Restriction Lifted for Item 91315 on 2018-03-03T10:15:14Z.","https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4193-2408"],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/89113"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 2015 Naomi Bloch"],"dc:subject":["Public deliberation","Information behavior","Environmental policy"],"dc:title":["Deliberating environmental policy: information seeking and use in Canada's House of Commons standing committees"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Library & Information Science"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:32Z"}