-
1
New tools of citizen participation and democratic
accountability
Elective MA course Winter 2018
4 CEU credits, 8 ECTS credits
Instructor: Marina Popescu ([email protected])
Department of Political Science
Central European University
Office: Room 404, 12 Oktober 6 Street
Classes: …
Office hours: 2 hours before class and with prior appointment by
email
Course description
This course aims to link the big questions of democracy,
representation, accountability and
participation with practical examples of mechanisms that were
developed in order to achieve
“better” or “more” democracy beyond or within traditional
elections and traditional
organizations across a wide range of new and old democracies
across the world.
This course is addressed to those with an interest in political
communication, comparative
politics, civil society, political activism, Internet-based
innovations and institutional design.
The class is designed to bridge democratic theory (and also
critical takes on democratic theory)
with the empirical analysis of practical, real life tools. Given
the increasingly widespread use
of democracy-enhancing tools, one aim of this course is to apply
a comparative evaluation
method to assess the impact, success and failure and the avenues
for improvement of such
tools.
There is not one tool fit for all, and improving the quality of
democracy means different things
for different people in different contexts depending both on the
actual problems encountered
and on the view taken about citizens’ roles in a democracy. More
generally, the choice of
democracy-enhancing tools depends both on the democratic gaps
and the specific problems
that are identified and on the democratic goals which such tools
are designed to achieve (e.g.
transparency, participation, empowerment, accountability.
The course will discuss:
online and offline tools like citizens juries, citizens
assemblies, citizen advisory
bureaus, deliberative polls, crowdsourcing, online
consultations, pledge trackers, fact checkers,
vote advice applications, participatory budgeting
distinctions between deliberative and consultation methods
transparency and accountability instruments
participatory decision making mechanisms
constitutional and electoral system reforms through citizen
involvement
actors involved; why and how different tools are promoted by
different actors from
local governments to national legislatures, from civil society
associations projects to
institutionalized transparency and consultation mechanisms, from
online citizen groups to
established media organizations
-
2
The course will start by reviewing the main questions and
concepts related to representation,
accountability, citizen participation and political decision
making, mapping the various
democracy-enhancing tools that have been available and for what
specific goals and in which
specific contexts they have been used. The bulk of the course
will refer to practical examples
from around the world.
Learning outcomes
By the end of the course, students are expected to be able
to
critically assess and evaluate democratic innovations, online
and offline;
link real-life examples of tools to more general debates around
the concepts of democracy and participation;
design simple tools that can be applied to the solution of
problems in specific contexts;
develop the appropriate examples and arguments for discussion,
through individual or group work.
Course requirements:
Note taking (25%) – 6 summaries (3 mandatory texts by Geissel,
Fung, Smith, submitted at
any point in the course + 3 more texts that you can choose, and
can be from recommended
readings following prior approval by the course instructor)
The three mandatory texts are likely to be (final list available
December 2017):
MR1 - Fung, Archon. 2005. “Democratizing the policy process.”
Chapter 33 in Oxford
Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MR2 - Geissel, B., Newton, K. (eds). 2012. Evaluating democratic
innovations: curing the
democratic malaise? New York: Routledge. Chapter 8: Impacts of
democratic innovations in
Europe: Findings and Desiderata
MR3 - Smith, Graham. 2009. “Studying Democratic Innovations: An
Analytical Framework”
in Democratic Innovations. Designing Institutions for Citizen
Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
For each submitted notes you can get:
Insufficient = 0
Acceptable = 50
OK = 75
Very Good = 100
You need to submit at least 6 reading notes. To pass you need to
collect at least 400 points
from all submitted assignments. You can submit more summaries to
get more points, but the
maximum amount of points you can get for this requirement is 600
(equivalent to getting 100
in each of the six mandatory notes).
Comments on the weekly assignments can be obtained during office
hours. Grades will not be
posted on a weekly basis and it is up to you to decide the
number of submissions beyond the
minimum required.
Most people should be able to receive an OK for all of the
summaries and all of you can easily
get the maximum points for this component.
The note taking exercise ensures that you read the assigned
readings but fundamentally their
goal is to help you get a grip of the core readings, see what
you do and do not understand and
-
3
be able to participate in the exercises. They allow you to have
structured notes for the seminar
discussion. Last but definitely not least, they provide very
useful long-term skills from the
ability to complete tasks within deadlines to critically engage
with potentially new and complex
written materials with an eye to derive the main points,
arguments, methods, and to present
them briefly and clearly, as well as to quickly and confidently
be able to identify and point out
problems or useful ideas. These are all skills that are often
lacking in the training of many
undergraduates but are essential in any workplace. Social
science education can provide this
and easily get you ahead of the pack.
The style and length of the notes is up to each student; but
make sure to include a simple, clear,
(even bullet point style) summary of the main question, the main
ideas, arguments and findings.
The feedback on the notes at the start-up of the course should
suffice to clarify what is a good
summary and what is not. Generally, the reading notes can
include sections that are cut & paste
but they must be marked with quotations or a different font and
page numbers should be
indicated. Include notes on points that you found unclear or
unconvincing as well as of things
that you found particularly interesting or relevant from a
democratic theory, comparative or
methodological perspective, or for a real life situation you
know of; provide if you feel like
examples from what you know or read elsewhere that pertain to
the topic and arguments; these
would be particularly useful to discuss in class. Do not avoid
raising points you did not
understand or listing as a main idea something that seems
unclear to you. The goal is to
understand the materials and be able to do the task, not just
try to get a better grade; you cannot
really cover up how much you really engaged with the topic and
understood it! Honest struggle
to understand is valued more than chasing a top grade through
avoidance of thorny issues.
In-class and take-home exercises (40%) - based on readings notes
and on documentation of
further examples, students will argue the merits, demerits and
limitations of various tools in
class. Detailed descriptions of the tasks will be provided in
due time, during the course. Notes
will be submitted both for the individual and group
exercises.
Final paper (35%) – this will usually take the form of
systematic and critical evaluation of
an existing participatory, participatory deliberative or
information tool. Describe the tool and
critically examine its design, goals and effects/ success in a
particular context by applying the
analytical framework suggested during the course. Connect the
existing literature on the type
of tool you are analysing with the particular case you have
chosen.
-
4
Course structure and readings
Note: The readings are provisional until December 2017. Further
readings and links
related to the topic will be also added in December and more
links will be made available
on e-learning during the course. Watch this space😊
INTRODUCTION
WEEK 1: Open democracies, open government, open politics: more
than catchphrases?
Why new tools? Fixing what, where and how
Archon Fung, David Weil. 2010. “Open Government and Open
Society” Chapter 8
of Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice
(New York: O’Reilly
Media). Pp. 105-114. [no reading notes required]
Morozov, Evgeny. 2013. To save everything, click here:
technology, solutionism and the urge
to fix problems that don’t exist. London: Allen Lane.
Introduction (ix-xv) and Chapter
3 (63-99). [no reading notes required]
Required mandatory reading [These readings will be used in
several classes. Notes are
due by the end of the course. The earlier you read and do at
least a first take on
the notes, the more useful for you in class]
MR1 - Fung, Archon. 2005. “Democratizing the policy process.”
Chapter 33 in Oxford
Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MR2 from Geissel, B., Newton, K. (eds). 2012. Evaluating
democratic innovations: curing the
democratic malaise? New York: Routledge. Chapter 8: Impacts of
democratic
innovations in Europe: Findings and Desiderata
MR3 - Smith, Graham. 2009. “Studying Democratic Innovations: An
Analytical Framework”
in Democratic Innovations. Designing Institutions for Citizen
Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Do familiarize yourself with
https://www.opengovpartnership.org/
http://participedia.net/
http://participationcompass.org/
https://www.opengovpartnership.org/http://participedia.net/http://participationcompass.org/
-
5
CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT: WHY, WHERE AND HOW? BIG FAMOUS CASES ON
CRUCIAL ISSUES, NATIONAL OR LOCAL
WEEK 2: The Constitutional Assemblies of Iceland and Ireland
Exercise 1: provide the facts and the arguments to discuss the
pluses and minuses of the recent
constitutional reform process in Iceland that received extensive
media coverage worldwide.
Use any resources you can find (online primarily).
Readings
David Farrell. The 2013 Irish Constitutional Convention: A bold
step or a damp squib? Draft
chapter for inclusion in John O’Dowd and Giuseppe Ferrari (eds),
Comparative
Reflections on 75 Years of the Irish Constitution. (Dublin:
Clarus Press, 2013).
Fournier, Patrick, Henk van der Kolk, R. Kenneth Carty, André
Blais, and Jonathan Rose.
2011. “Why Citizen Assemblies and How did they Work?”, ch. 2 In
When Citizens
Decide: Lessons from Citizen Assemblies on Electoral Reform.
Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
ADD JoP/bjps on iceland & more recent citizens assemblies
stuff
Thorarensen, Björg. Constitutional Reform Process in Iceland:
Involving the people into the
process. Paper presented at the Oslo-Rome International Workshop
on democracy, 7-9
November 2011.
Bergmann, Eirikur. Reconstituting Iceland: Constitutional reform
caught in a new critical order
in the wake of crisis. Presented in the workshop Crowd-pleasers
or key janglers? The
impact of drops in political legitimacy on democratic reform and
their consequences.
Leiden University, January 24-25, 2013.
David M. Farrell, Eoin O'Malley, Jane Suiter. 2013. Deliberative
Democracy in Action Irish-
style: The 2011 We the Citizens Pilot Citizens' Assembly. Irish
Political Studies, 28:1,
99-113
http://stjornlagarad.is/english/
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE89K09C20121021?irpc=932
http://www.constitutionalassembly.politicaldata.org/
https://www.constitution.ie/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/20942842125/
… JANUARY/FEBRUARY: Deadline for sending in the ideas for
Exercise 3 on … . More
details provided in class.
http://stjornlagarad.is/english/http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE89K09C20121021?irpc=932http://www.constitutionalassembly.politicaldata.org/https://www.constitution.ie/https://www.facebook.com/groups/20942842125/
-
6
… : Deadline for sending in the Excel sheet with the tools for
Exercise 3 on …
WEEK 3: Citizens assemblies and electoral system reforms in
Canada and the
Netherlands
Required readings
Fournier, Patrick, Henk van der Kolk, R. Kenneth Carty, André
Blais, and Jonathan Rose.
2011. “Why Citizen Assemblies and How did they Work?”, ch. 2 In
When Citizens
Decide: Lessons from Citizen Assemblies on Electoral Reform.
Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
David Farrell. The 2013 Irish Constitutional Convention: A bold
step or a damp squib? Draft
chapter for inclusion in John O’Dowd and Giuseppe Ferrari (eds),
Comparative
Reflections on 75 Years of the Irish Constitution. (Dublin:
Clarus Press, 2013).
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public
http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/
http://participedia.net/en/cases/british-columbia-citizens-assembly-electoral-reform
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/old/features/electoral/citizen-
assembly/backgrounder.html
Background readings
British Columbia
British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. 2004.
Making every vote count.
The case for electoral reform in British Columbia.
http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/BCCA-Final-Report.pdf
Gibson, Gordon F. 2002. Report on the Constitution of the
Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral
Reform. (on e-learning website)
Ontario
The Ontario Citizens’ Assembly Secretariat. 2007. Democracy at
work: the Ontario Citizens’
Assembly on Electoral Reform.
http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/assets/Democracy%20at%20Work%20-
%20The%20Ontario%20Citizens'%20Assembly%20on%20Electoral%20Reform.pdf
The Netherlands
Electoral System Civic Forum. 2006. Process Report. (on
e-learning website)
Electoral System Civic Forum. 2006. Recommendations. (on
e-learning website)
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/publichttp://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/http://participedia.net/en/cases/british-columbia-citizens-assembly-electoral-reformhttp://www.mapleleafweb.com/old/features/electoral/citizen-assembly/backgrounder.htmlhttp://www.mapleleafweb.com/old/features/electoral/citizen-assembly/backgrounder.htmlhttp://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/BCCA-Final-Report.pdfhttp://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/assets/Democracy%20at%20Work%20-%20The%20Ontario%20Citizens'%20Assembly%20on%20Electoral%20Reform.pdfhttp://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/assets/Democracy%20at%20Work%20-%20The%20Ontario%20Citizens'%20Assembly%20on%20Electoral%20Reform.pdf
-
7
WEEK 4: Participatory budgeting in Porto Allegre and beyond
Mandatory readings – notes (if you decide this is one of your 3
other readings to take notes of) are due on …, before the end of
the day
Baiocchi, Gianpaolo. 2003. ‘Participation, Activism and
Politics: The Porto Alegre
Experiment” in Deepening Democracy, Institutional Innovations in
Empowered
Participatory Governance edited by Archon Fung and Erik Olin
Wright, 45-76, Verso.
Sintomer, Yves, Herzberg, Carsten; Röcke, Anja. 2008.
Participatory budgeting in Europe.
Potentials and challenges. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research: vol
32:1, 164-168.
Sintomer, Yves; Herzberg, Carsten; Röcke, Anja; and Allegretti,
Giovanni (2012)
"Transnational Models of Citizen Participation: The Case of
Participatory Budgeting,"
Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 8: Iss. 2, Article 9.
Available at:
http://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1234&context=jpd
SQW, Cambridge Economic Associates, Geoff Fordham Associates
(2011) Communities in
the driving seat: a study of Participatory Budgeting in England
Final report, Department
for Communities and Local Government, Retrieved at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6152/1
9932231.pdf
http://www.commdev.org/files/1613_file_GPB.pdf
http://participedia.net/en/methods/participatory-budgeting
http://participedia.net/en/cases/participatory-budgeting-porto-alegre
http://participedia.net/cases/participatory-budgeting-berlin-lichtenberg
http://participedia.net/en/organizations/participatory-budgeting-unit-manchester-uk
http://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk/
http://www2.redbridge.gov.uk/cms/redbridge_conversation_2012.aspx
http://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk/models
http://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk/case-studies/case-studies
http://participedia.net/en/cases/chicago-participatory-budgeting-project
http://participatorybudgeting49.wordpress.com/
http://www.ward49.com/
http://www.participatorybudgeting.org
http://www.pbnyc.org/
https://gianpaolobaiocchi.wordpress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/participatory/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/PBintheUK/
Participatory budgeting beyond the Porto Alegre example
http://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1234&context=jpdhttp://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1234&context=jpdhttp://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1234&context=jpdhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6152/19932231.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6152/19932231.pdfhttp://www.commdev.org/files/1613_file_GPB.pdfhttp://participedia.net/en/methods/participatory-budgetinghttp://participedia.net/en/cases/participatory-budgeting-porto-alegrehttp://participedia.net/cases/participatory-budgeting-berlin-lichtenberghttp://participedia.net/en/organizations/participatory-budgeting-unit-manchester-ukhttp://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk/http://www2.redbridge.gov.uk/cms/redbridge_conversation_2012.aspxhttp://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk/modelshttp://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk/case-studies/case-studieshttp://participedia.net/en/cases/chicago-participatory-budgeting-projecthttp://participatorybudgeting49.wordpress.com/http://www.ward49.com/http://www.participatorybudgeting.org/http://www.pbnyc.org/https://gianpaolobaiocchi.wordpress.com/https://www.facebook.com/groups/participatory/https://www.facebook.com/groups/PBintheUK/
-
8
Exercise 2: In- class discussion on different examples of
participatory budgeting following the
grid/ questions/ same style used for Citizens Assemblies and
Participatory Budgeting
in Porto Alegre
WEEK 5: Questions, concepts, dimensions
Part 1 - Comparing Tools: Fixing what, where and how. A
theoretical and analytical
framework
Exercise 3: Find 2 tools in your country (or in other countries,
after approval) and provide the
most accurate description of the context in which such tools
were adopted, the problem
they (try to) address and how they operate (d). Make a list of
the positive aspects and
of the potential criticisms of these tools.
In class, we will discuss and compare the tools and show how we
can group them in different
categories.
Mandatory readings: MR1 Fung - Democratizing the Policy
Process
Part 1 - Comparing Tools: Discussion
Mandatory readings:
MR2 - Geissel, B., Newton, K. (eds). 2012. Evaluating democratic
innovations: curing the
democratic malaise? New York: Routledge. Chapter TBA
MR3 - Smith - Studying Democratic Innovations
RECOMMENDED READINGS:
Chapters 3, 7, 9 from Geissel, B., Newton, K. (eds). 2012.
Evaluating democratic innovations:
curing the democratic malaise? New York: Routledge.
BACKGROUND READINGS [non-academic texts; give you an idea of the
universe of
‘tools’ and existing approaches to their design and
evaluation]:
Clift, Steven L. 2004. E-Government and Democracy -
representation and citizen engagement
in the Information age, Publicus, UNPAN/DESA.
Lukensmeyer, Carolyn J. and Lars Hasselblad Torres. 2006. Public
Deliberation: A Manager’s
Guide to Citizen Engagement, IBM Center for The Business of
Government.
Digital Dialogues. 2009. Digital Engagement Evaluation Toolkit
(Prepared for the Ministery
of Justice by the Hansard Society)
Digital Dialogues. 2009. Digital Engagement Guide - A guide to
effective digital engagement
for government (Prepared for the Ministry of Justice by the
Hansard Society)
Sheedy, Amanda. 2008. Handbook on Citizen Engagement: Beyond
Consultation, Canadian
Policy Research Networks Inc.
-
9
WEEK 6: Information tools: how citizens check on
politicians/governments at election
time and beyond?
Prospective means: vote advice applications, costing of party
manifesto pledges, issue
position trackers
Retrospective means: integrity/candidate profilers, fact
checkers, spending evaluations,
parliamentary monitoring
Type of actors checked upon: parties, candidates,
governments
Type of actors developing the checks: public broadcasters,
independent (state) agencies,
civil society organizations, independent media
Types of checks: political issue positions,
ideological/value/issue consistency, integrity,
financial/economics skills and performance, various measures of
performance
Part 1 - Prospective means: vote advice applications (VAA in
different electoral contexts)
Costa Lobo, Marina, Maarten Wink and Marco Lisi. Mapping the
Political Landscape: A Vote
Advice Application in Portugal
Walgrave, Stefaan, Michiel Nuytemans and Koen Pepermans (2008)
Voting Aid Applications
between charlatanism and political science: the effect of
statement selection
Part 2v- Retrospective means: monitoring politicians
Policing Politicians: Citizen Empowerment and Political
Accountability in Uganda. Macartan
Humphreys and Jeremy Weinstein. http://cu-csds.org/wp-
content/uploads/2009/10/ABCDE-paper.pdf
Strengthening Parliamentary Accountability, Citizen Engagement,
and Access to
Information: A Global Survey of Parliamentary Monitoring
Organizations | Andrew G.
Mandelbaum
INFORMATION TOOLS
Exercise 4: Discussion of information, participation, uses and
possible effects of information
tools based on examples of parliamentary monitoring and of other
retrospective and
prospective information tools
WEEK 7: Participatory and participatory deliberative tools
Part 1 -Democratic software? The case of Liquid Feedback
Exercise 5: Gather information on the platform "Liquid Feedback"
and prepare for an in-class
discussion on the topic following the grid/general questions of
the course.
-
10
Behrens, Jan, Kistner, Axel, Nitsche, Andreas and Swierczek.
2014. The principles of
LiquidFeedback. Interaktive Demokratie e.V.
Part 2 -From consultations to autonomous accountability
*Fung, Archon. 2003. Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight
Institutional Design Choices and Their
Consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (3): 338 –
67
Coleman, Stephen and Blumler, Jay G. 2009. The Internet and
Democratic Citizenship: theory,
practice and policy. Cambridge University Press. Chapters 4, 5,
6.
Fung, Archon. 2004. Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban
Democracy. Princeton
University Press. Chapters TBA.
PARTICIPATORY & PARTICIPATORY DELIBERATIVE TOOLS
WEEK 8: Mini publics and deliberative polls
Part 1 – Deliberative polls: Principles and ideals
*Fishkin, James S. 2011. ‘Deliberative polling: reflections on
an ideal made practical’
in Evaluating Democratic Innovations: Curing the Democratic
Malaise? Edited
by Kenneth
Goodin, Robert. 2012. Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory
and Practice After the
Deliberative Turn. Oxford University Press. Chapter 10.
Bächtiger, André, Kimmo Grönlund, and Maija Setälä (eds., 2013).
Deliberative Mini-Publics.
Promises, Practices and Pitfalls. ECPR Press. Chapters TBA.
Part 2 - Mini publics: Types & Critical issues
Ward, Hugh, Aletta Norval, Todd Landman and Jules Pretty. 2003.
“Open Citizens’ Juries and
the Politics of Sustainability.” Political Studies, Volume 51:
282-299
French, Damien and Michael Laver. 2009. “Participation bias,
durable opinion shifts and
sabotage through withdrawal in citizens' juries.” Political
Studies, Volume 57, 422–
450.
… - Deadline for approval of final paper/project topic
WEEK 9: Success and failure of participatory tools – design and
evaluation
-
11
Gerber, Marlène, André Bächtiger, Irena Fiket, Marco
Steenbergen, and Jürg Steiner. 2014.
Deliberative and non-deliberative persuasion: Mechanisms of
opinion formation in
EuroPolis. European Union Politics 15 (3): 410-429.
Sanders, David. 2012. The Effects of Deliberative Polling in an
EU-wide Experiment: Five
Mechanisms in Search of an Explanation. British Journal of
Political Science, 42, pp 617-
640. doi:10.1017/S0007123411000494.
Suiter, Jane, David M Farrell, and Eoin O’Malley. 2014. When do
deliberative citizens change
their opinions? Evidence from the Irish Citizens’ Assembly.
International Political
Science Review.
John, Peter, Cotterill, Sarah and Richardson, Liz. 2013. Nudge,
nudge, think, think.
Bloomsbury. Chapters 9 and 11.
Baccaro, Lucio, Bächtiger, André and Deville, Marion. 2014.
Small Differences Matter. The
Impact of Discussion Modalities on Deliberative Outcomes.
British Journal of Political
Science.
Gerber, Marlène, Bächtiger, André, Fiket, Irena, Steenbergen,
Marco and Steiner, Jürg. 2014.
Deliberative and non-deliberative persuasion: Mechanisms of
opinion formation in
EuroPolis. European Union Politics.
Goodin, Robert. 2012. Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory
and Practice After the
Deliberative Turn. Oxford University Press.
Font, Joan, Della Porta Donatella and Sintomer, Yves. 2014.
Participatory Democracy in
Southern Europe: Causes, Characteristics and Consequences.
Rowman and Littlefield.
Chapter TBA.
Mandatory reading: MR2 Geissel, B., Newton, K. (eds). 2012.
Evaluating democratic
innovations: curing the democratic malaise? New York: Routledge.
Chapter TBA
….: Exercise 6: Identifying goals, design and evaluation of
tools success
WEEK 10: Empowering and interactive media content after the
digital transformation
WEEK 11: Enablers of democratic government: under which
particular circumstances
are tools more likely to work?
-
12
Exercise 7: Evaluate a tool (group exercise). Detailed
information will be provided in due
time.
Recommended readings (to be split and read depending on the
agreed upon tool and
contextual variable to be addressed):
Fung, Archon, Russon Gilman, Hollie and Shkabatur, Jennifer.
2013. Six Models for the
Internet + Politics. International Studies Review. Volume 15,
Issue 1, 30 – 47.
Goodin, Robert. 2012. Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory
and Practice After the
Deliberative Turn. Oxford University Press. Chapter 10
Farrell, David M. 2014. ‘Stripped Down’ or Reconfigured
Democracy. West European Politics
37 (2): 439-455.
Zuckerman, Ethan. “Cute Cats to the Rescue? Participatory Media
and Political Expression.”
In Youth, New Media and Political Participation, edited by
Danielle Allen and
Jennifer Light. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/78899.
Zuckerman, Ethan. 2014. New Media, New Civics? Policy &
Internet. Volume 6, Issue 2,
pages 151-168, June 2014.
Farrell, Henry. 2014. New Problems, New Publics? Dewey and New
Media. Policy & Internet.
Volume 6, Issue 2, pages 176-191, June 2014.
Chadwick, Andrew. 2006. Internet politics: states, citizens, and
new communication
technologies. New York: Oxford University Press. Chapters
1&2
Hindman, Matthew. 2008. The myth of digital democracy. Princeton
University Press. Chapter
1
Debate between Evgeny Morozov and Steven Johnson on “New
Republic”
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112189/social-media-doesnt-always-help-social-
movements
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112336/future-perfects-steven-johnson-evgeny-
morozov-debate-social-media
WEEK 12: FINAL PROJECTS PRESENTATIONS
Final take home paper – in-depth evaluation of an existing
tool
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112189/social-media-doesnt-always-help-social-movementshttp://www.newrepublic.com/article/112189/social-media-doesnt-always-help-social-movementshttp://www.newrepublic.com/article/112336/future-perfects-steven-johnson-evgeny-morozov-debate-social-mediahttp://www.newrepublic.com/article/112336/future-perfects-steven-johnson-evgeny-morozov-debate-social-media