1

New tools of citizen participation and democratic accountability

Elective MA course Winter 2018

4 CEU credits, 8 ECTS credits

Instructor: Marina Popescu (mpope@ceu.edu)

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