Necessary knowledge for communications policy: information asymmetries and commercial data access and usage in the policymaking process.

• Author: Napoli, Philip M.

This project was conducted with the support of a grant from the Social Science Research Council, as part of its Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere Program, which is supported by the Ford Foundation's Electronic Media Policy Portfolio.

1. INTRODUCTION II. RESEARCH AND POLICYMAKING III. EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS AND POLICY RESEARCH IV. INFORMATION ASYMMETRIES AND POLICY RESEARCH V. PRIVATIZATION OF DATA VI. CASE STUDY: MEDIA OWNERSHIP VII. THE NEED FOR IMPROVED ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL DATA SOURCES FOR POLICY RESEARCHERS VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS IX. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION

   The communications policymaking process is becoming increasingly research-driven. (1) As has been seen across all policy sectors, policymakers rely heavily upon both internally- and externally-generated empirical studies in the formulation of, and justification for, specific policy decisions. (2) This has proven to be a controversial trend, both within and beyond communications policymaking, as debates have arisen about the appropriate role, usage, and capabilities of empirical research in policymaking. (3) Regardless of these disputes, it is safe to say that both the demand for--and utilization of--research have become more pronounced in communications policymaking. Consequently, stakeholders seeking to have an impact on policy outcomes find themselves increasingly reliant upon research to effectively support their policy arguments. (4)

   One aspect of this trend that has been neglected, however, involves the growing importance of data generated by large-scale commercial data providers to policymaking and policy analysis. That is, market, audience, and content data gathered and aggregated by commercial organizations such as Nielsen Media Research, (5) BIA Financial Network, (6) Arbitron, (7) and Kagan Research (8) play an increasingly prominent role in the research submitted to--and conducted by--the FCC. These data providers often are the sole source of specific information that is central to developing portraits of media markets, audience behavior, or content availability, (9) and are at the core of policy decision making, analysis, and advocacy. However, these data sources also are often enormously expensive and are thus difficult to access. And, in some instances, the access terms can be very prohibitive--in ways that can undermine the effective dissemination of the research.

   This Article considers the implications of the prominence of commercial data in the communications policymaking process. Specifically, this Article considers the kinds of imbalances in policy advocacy and policy decision making that may be created by unequal access to these important data sources by the various stakeholders involved in the policymaking process. Drawing upon theoretical and empirical work related to information asymmetries and knowledge utilization, this Article argues that the contemporary communications policymaking environment is one in which the disparity in resources across various stakeholder groups is amplified by the associated imbalances in access to the commercial data sources that are increasingly central to policy decision making and to persuasive policy advocacy. This Article therefore proposes a number of solutions to correct this imbalance and thereby reduce the information asymmetries that characterize contemporary communications policy analysis and policy advocacy.

   The first Part of this Article provides background on the policymaking process and the role of research in this process, drawing upon the growing body of literature that focuses on knowledge utilization in policymaking. This Part documents the increasingly empirical orientation that has characterized policymaking as a whole and communications policymaking in particular. This Part also documents the importance of external policy analysts (i.e., scholars, advocates, industry associations, think tanks) and their research to policy decision making. This Part then situates these trends within the concept of information asymmetries and their impact on policy decision making.

   The second Part explores the privatization of the data that feed into contemporary policy analysis. This Part documents trends across policymaking and database construction in general, as well as within the specific context of communications policymaking. This Part includes a case study of the FCC's 2003 media ownership decision (10) in order to illustrate the prominence that commercial data sources can play in communications policymaking and policy analysis, as well as the complications that can arise from this reliance upon such sources. This Part documents the range of commercial data sources used both by the FCC and by those filing comments/analyses cited by the Commission in connection with its June 2003 Report and Order. (11)

   The third Part considers the normative arguments in favor of granting policy researchers broader access to data sources. This Part outlines the social benefits associated with expanded data access, as well as the dangers and costs associated with a policymaking environment in which substantial data access disparities exist.

   The fourth Part offers a set of recommendations for developing expanded data access for policy researchers. This Part explores possible mechanisms for enhancing the role of the government in data gathering, as well as mechanisms (including legislation) for developing greater access to commercial data sources for policy researchers in ways that balance the financial imperatives of commercial data providers (whose adequate financial incentives are essential to the continued generation of these data sources) with the public interest considerations regarding the effective operation of the policymaking process. The concluding Part summarizes the key arguments presented in this Article and offers suggestions for further research.

2. RESEARCH AND POLICYMAKING

   Regulatory decision making inevitably involves the blending of empirical findings with normative judgments. (12) This, however, is a challenging balance to strike, (13) and one that requires an integration of value judgments and logical calculations. (14) Nonetheless, many observers of the policymaking process have identified a continued trend toward a greater reliance upon empirical research as part of a greater "rationalization" of policy decision making. (15) Albaek describes the introduction of evaluation and policy research into U.S. policymaking in the 1960s and 1970s as "one of the most comprehensive attempts so far to allow research to make its original, relevant contribution to changing society for the better...." (16)

   There have been a number of explanations for this development. Some argue that it is a purely needs-driven phenomenon. As the National Research Council has noted, "As the economy grows more complex and the population becomes more diverse, increasingly detailed data and data analyses are required for policies to match well with economic and demographic realities. This is true not only for policy making, but also for policy assessment and evaluation." (17) Others take a more critical stance, seeing this trend as a mechanism for marginalizing the citizenry in the policymaking process as well as marginalizing the role of value judgments in policy decision making. (18) Regardless of the reason, this trend certainly can be described as a self-sustaining process, one in which the initial influx of empirically-minded personnel into policymaking bodies creates internal motivations for empirical analysis, which in turn furthers the staffing of these bodies with similarly oriented personnel. (19)

   These broad trends certainly characterize communications policymaking, where a stronger emphasis on research-driven policymaking developed within the Federal Communications Commission in the 1970s and 1980s, (20) and the personnel make-up of the FCC shifted accordingly. (21) In 1973, the Commission introduced its own internal research and planning enterprise, the Office of Plans and Policy, so that the Agency would be better equipped with the data and analyses it deemed necessary to guide its decision making. (22)

   A common concern raised about this trend, however, involves the extent to which it represents legitimate efforts to bring greater objectivity and analysis to policy decision making--or, rather, that research and analysis have been primarily utilized in support of predetermined policy outcomes. From this latter perspective, "research is used as 'political ammunition,'" (23) serving a "legitimation" function in the realms of policymaking and policy advocacy. (24) Sabatier summarizes this position well when he notes, "it is quite likely that administrative agencies devote a considerable portion of their resources to the acquisition of technical information but that this information is often utilized to legitimate, rather than to influence, policy decisions." (25) The credibility of the research inevitably gets called into question from this standpoint, as policymakers who are not, in fact, seeking decision-making guidance from empirical research, but rather, are seeking studies that support specific predetermined policy outcomes, may not engage in appropriate scrutiny in either the commission or the assessment of individual pieces of research. (26)

   However, others argue that this kind of political utilization of research and analysis is perfectly consistent with principles of democratic deliberation, and the notion of a truly objective and rational policymaking process is an ideal type that never has, and never will, characterize the realities of policymaking. (27) Rather, policy analysis is better considered as a form of argument. (28) According to Rogers, "It seems that the policy research community is gradually coming to accept the politicization of knowledge utilization." (29) As a result, policy researchers have become more comfortable with politicized uses of their work and...