http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/magazine/23FOB-medium-t.html?_r=1Kavanaugh, A., Pérez-Quiñones, M., Tedesco, J. and Sanders, W. (in press) Toward a Virtual Town Square in the Era of Web 2.0. In Jeremy Hunsinger, Lisbeth Klastrup and Matthew Allen (Eds.) Handbook of Internet Research. Surrey, UK: Springer. Kavanaugh, A., Kim, B.J., Schmitz, J. and Pérez-Quiñones, M. 2008. Net Gains in Political Participation: Secondary effects of the Internet on community. Information, Communication and Society, 11(7): 933-963. Kavanaugh, A., Zin, T.T., Rosson, M.B., Carroll, J.M., Schmitz, J. and Kim, B.J. 2007. Local Groups Online: Political learning and participation. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 16 (September): 375-395. Kavanaugh, A., Carroll, J.M., Rosson, M.B., Reese, D.D. & Zin, T.T. 2005. Participating in civil society: The case of networked communities. Interacting with Computers 17, 9-33. Kavanaugh, A. Reese, D.D., Carroll, J.M., & Rosson, M.B. 2003. Weak Ties in Networked Communities, pp. 265-286. In M. Huysman, E. Wenger & V. Wulf (Eds). 2003. Communities and Technologies. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Reprinted (2005) in The Information Society 21 (2), 119-131. Kavanaugh, A. 2003. When Everyone is Wired: The Impact of the Internet on Families in Networked Communities, pp. 423-437. In J. Turow and A. Kavanaugh (eds.) The Wired Homestead: An MIT Press Sourcebook on the Internet and the Family. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kavanaugh, A. and Patterson, S. 2001. The impact of community computer networks on social capital and community involvement. American Behavioral Scientist, 45 (3): 496-509.Chadwick, A., 2009. Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance. /J/S: Journal of Law and Policy For the Information Society/, 5(1), 1-32. Gueorguieva, V., 2008. Voters, MySpace, and YouTube: The Impact of Alternative Communication Channels on the 2006 Election Cycle and Beyond. /Social Science Computer Review/, 26(3), 288-300. Hargittai, E. & Walejko, G. 2008. The Participation Divide: Content Creation and Sharing in the Digital Age. /Information, Communication //and Society/.11(2):239-256. Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M, Sobel, K, and Chowdury, A (Forthcoming) Twitter Power: Tweets as Electronic Word of Mouth. /Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences and Technology./ //Karpf, D. 2009. Macaca moments reconsidered… YouTube effects or Netroots effects? Submitted for consideration for the YouTube and the 2008 Election Conference. Leurs, K. 2009. “Be(co)ming cyber Mocro’s: Digital Media, Migration and Glocalized Youth Cultures.” Presented at the Race, Ethnicity, and (New) Media Symposium, May 2, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. Leurs, K. 2009 "Migrant youth & online hypertext: multiple modes of becoming/belonging." Presented at the 7th European Feminist Research Conference, June 6, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Lilleker, D.G. & Jackson, N., 2008. Politicians and Web 2.0: the current bandwagon or changing the mindset? Paper presented at Politics: Web 2.0: An International Conference, Royal Hollloway, UK. Available at: http://newpolcom.rhul.ac.uk/politics-web-20-paper-download/ [Accessed December 30, 2008]. Preece, J. and Shneiderman, B., The Reader-to-Leader Framework: Motivating technology-mediated social participation, AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction 1, 1 (March 2009), 13-32, available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/thci/vol1/iss1/5/ <https://webmail.wmin.ac.uk/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://aisel.aisnet.org/thci/vol1/iss1/5/> Williams, C.B. & Gulati, G.J., 2007. Social Networks in Political Campaigns: Facebook and the 2006 Midterm Elections. Paper presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, USA. Available at: http://www.bentley.edu/news-events/pdf/Facebook_APSA_2007_final.pdf [Accessed November 26, 2008]. *Bibliographies* McNutt, J. Electronic Advocacy Bibliography: Web 2.0. Available at http://www.policymagic.org/web2_0.htm *Conferences* Politics: Web 2.0: An International Conference. New Political Communication Unit, Department of Politics and International Relations, Royal Holloway, University of London, April 17-18, 2008. Programme and papers available at http://newpolcom.rhul.ac.uk/politics-web-2-0-conference/ 4^th International Conference on Communities and Technologies. The Pennsylvania State University, June 25-27, 2009. Programme available at http://cct2009.ist.psu.edu/program.cfm * * *Case Studies*
**Peer-to-Patent. http://www.peertopatent.org/





COURSE GOALS:
The Internet has fundamentally changed our daily lives. The most important way it has changed us is by allowing unprecedented access to ideas, markets, images,information and people.The Web has exciting implications for the revitalization of democracy. This greater access to the outside world has the possibility of making us more informed and engaged citizens. This easy access to networks makes citizens, perhaps for the first time in history, able to play a direct role in decision making. The social web facilitates the ability of citizens to deliberate with their fellow citizens and with elected and appointed officials to improve public policy. However, the democratic promise of the social web also comes with potential costs.The on-demand culture of the web allows us to receive instant gratification while we pursue our narrow and private interests. Some scholars argue that this makes it impossible to bring citizens together to solve common problems. This course will explore this fundamental dilemmas inherent in being a Digital Citizen. We will start by exploring the many ways in which the Web attracts us, we will then discuss its use in the political process with particular emphasis on the Obama campaign's use of Web tools. Next, we will talk bout the promise of the web for development and conclude by discussing the use of the Web in government at the local, federal and international levels.

This course will address the following CLU General Education Goals:

1. Written Communication Skills
2. Understanding of Cultural and Global Diversity
3. Critical Thinking
4. Growth in Identity and Values
5. Interpersonal and Teamwork Skills
6. Service to the Community

This course will address the followingPolitical ScienceDepartment Goals:

1. Critical Thinking
2. Civic Engagement

In this course, students are expected to:

1. employ different theoretical approaches towards understanding the relationship between the internet and democracy.
2. exhibit critical thinking and effective writing skills by incorporating course readings into reflective essay assignments
3. demonstrate the ability to work with other students in groups to present information.
4. show an ability to find, evaluate, use and communicate information in both oral and written formats.

CLASS REQUIREMENTS:
Any aspect of this syllabus can be changed by the instructor at his discretion.

Readings for the day need to be completed prior to class times, as class activities, discussions, and quizzes will primarily draw upon assigned readings.

Talking, working, and thinking with others are large parts of this class. We will get into discussions about some controversial subjects. I encourage expressions of opinions (myself included), but there are some classroom boundaries. Our class will be a safe place. That is to say, we will all treat each other in a respectful manner. Translation: rude interruptions, hurtful insults (including racial, gender, sexuality, etc. slurs), and personal attacks will not be tolerated. You may not always be comfortable with the topics, and by no means are you expected to approve of everything we discuss.

California Lutheran University is committed to providing reasonable accommodations to students with various documented disabilities (physical, learning, or psychological). If you are a student requesting accommodations for this course, please contact your professor at the beginning of the semester and register with the Coordinator for Students with Disabilities (Pearson Library, Center for Academic Resources, Ext. 3260) for the facilitation and verification of need. Faculty will work closely together with you and your coordinator to provide necessary accommodations.

Academic Honesty: Plagiarism, cheating and other forms of academic dishonesty will not be tolerated in this class. According to the CLU student handbook, plagiarism occurs “whenever a source of any kind has not been acknowledged.” With respect to my policy, let me be clear – you will receive and F in the course if you take material from the Internet and insert it into any written work as your own without giving credit to the person who wrote it. Those found violating the CLU code on academic dishonesty in any way will receive an F in the class.

All quizzes, exams, activities, and papers must be turned in on time: no make-ups will be given, and no re-writes will be offered. If an assignment is of the take-home variety, it must be typed, double-spaced, with 1-inch margins all around, spell-checked, grammar-checked, and demonstrate correct citation and bibliographic format. Late take-home assignments will not be graded unless you have documentation of an emergency. Missed quizzes will be marked down as zeroes

COURSE ASSIGNMENTS
Your grade will come from the following assignments:

Discussion Leadership:Two Wednesdays during the semester, you will be responsible for leading discussion on the readings for that day. You will lead a 30-45 minute discussion that draws out the main arguments from the reading. To guide the discussion you will provide two thought provoking questions for group discussion. Each of you will post your questions to your twitter stream no later than noon on the Monday of the week you are presenting. Failure to do so will earn you a two point reduction for the assignment. In addition, you will create a 500-700 word blog post based on the readings. Here is a useful rubric for making effective blog posts. The questions and responses will be graded based on their thoughtfulness and clarity. The class discussion assignment will be worth 10 points.

Discussion Leadership = 2 X 10 points = 20 points

Discussion Participation: In preparation for the Wednesday discussion, you will provide responses to at least one of that day’s questions and post them to a Diigo forum you create. You can earn up to 20 points on this assignment by posting a thoughtful yet pithy response by 8am on ten of those Wednesday mornings. The responses will be graded on their thoughtfulness and clarity.

10 Class participation responses = 20 points

Blog Responses: Five times during the semester I will ask you to provide a one paragraph response to a blog posting on my blog. I will let you know in advance the days during which you will be required to post. You will get 7 opportunities to provide blog comments, thus two freebies.

Blog Responses = 5 points
Diigo Portfolio: part of your grade will come from your level of engagement with the readings. There will be no exams in the course. Instead, I will ask you to create a portfolio of content on Diigo, a social bookmarking site that allows you to share bookmarks, create and respond to forums and add highlights and comments to existing articles. I will rely a great deal on your annotation of the readings via Diigo. Here is a link to the class Diigo Page.

Diigo Portfolio = 10 points

Digital Democracy Project and Presentation: As part of a group of three, you will contribute to a 25-30 page research proposal that proposes using Web technology for social change (preferably a CLU problem). The report should include: a statement of the problem your Web application will address, a discussion of how this application will address the problem, an examination of why this application will address the problem, and an examination of how the application will be implemented and potential problems in development/implementation. You will present your work during the final week of class via a power point presentation that will contain at least four slides (one slide for each section of the paper). This final paper and the presentation will be worth a combined 30 points (20 points from the paper and 10 points from the presentation.

Digital Democracy Project and Presentation = 45 points

Assignments Summary
Discussion Leadership = 20 points
Discussion Participation = 10 points
Blog Responses = 5 points
Diigo Portfolio = 10 points
Digital Democracy Project, Drafts and Presentation – 45 points

REQUIRED TEXTS:

SCHEDULE OF READINGS:
Horrigan, J. (2007) A Typology of Information and Communication Technology Users. Pew Internet & American Life Project

Welzel, C., Inglehart, R. & Klingemann, H. (2003). “The theory of human development: A cross-cultural analysis”. In European Journal of Political Research, 42(3), 341-379. Oxford: Blackwell.

Williams, R. (1985) Culture and Society. Columbia University Press. Conclusion.

Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon.

McCarthur Foundation: Teens Online Study.

Feb 18: The lure of the web - Remix/Free Culture
Required

Steven Weber, “The Political Economy of Open Source Software,” .

Eric von Hippel, “Open Source Software Projects as User Innovation Networks.”.

Additional
Pamela Samuelson, “Towards a New Politics of Intellectual Property,”

Cowen, T. (2006) Copyright and the Future of Decentralized Incentives.

Lior Jacob Strahilevitz, “Charismatic Code, Social Norms, and the Emergence of Cooperation on the File-Swapping Networks,”

Fred von Lohmann, “Fair Use and Digital Rights Management: Preliminary Thoughts on the

(Irreconcilable?) Tension Between Them,”

James Boyle, “A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism for the Net? .

Lawrence Lessig, “Innovating Copyright,”

Brian Fitzgerald, “Has Open Source a Future?”.

Dan Hunter and Gregory Lastowka, “Amateur to Amateur,”.

Kieran Healy and Alan Schussman, “The Ecology of Open Source Software Development,”.

Mar 27 Digital Citizenship Workshop #2

IV. Institutions

Development

Mar 30: The Promise of the Information Communication Technologies (ICT's)

Required
Atkinson, R. D. & McKay, A. (2007). Digital Prosperity. Understanding the Economic Benefits of the Information Technology Revolution. Washington, DC: Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

Taylor Boas, Thad Dunning and Jennifer Bussell, “Will the Digital Revolution Revolutionize Development?.


Additional
Steven Weber and Jennifer Bussell, “”Will Information Technology Reshape the North-South Asymmetry of Power in the Global Political Economy?”

Zuckerman, E. (2008) How do Social Change Organizations Innovate. Slideshare presentation.

AfriGadget, Malawi Windmill,TradeNet, M-Pesa, Ushahidi

http://economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9149142

Watson, T. (2008) CauseWired: Plugging in, Getting Involved and Changing the World. Wiley.

UNCTAD. (2006). Using ICTs to Achieve Growth and Development. Background paper by the UNCTAD secretariat. Geneva: UNCTAD.

Apr 1: ICT's and Development
Required

Sun, M. H. (2006). “Connecting the Rwandan Coffee Cooperatives: Economic Analysis of Network Deployments for Rural Rwanda”. In Best, M. L. (Ed.), Last Mile Initiative Innovations.. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.

Additional
Ellis, S. J. & Cravens, J. (2000). The Virtual Volunteering Guidebook. Palo Alto: Impact Online.

Souter, D. (2004). ICTs and Economic Growth in Developing Countries. Paris: OECD.

WorldChanging.com

Kenny, C.J. (2006) Overselling the Web: Development and the Internet. Boulder. Lynne Reinner..

Apr 3: The Digital Divide
Additional
Jørgensen, R. F. (Ed.) (2006). Human Rights in the Global Information Society. Cambridge: MIT Press. Introduction.

OpenNet Initiative: Internet Filtering Map

Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, “Power and Interdependence in the Information Age, .

Daniel Drezner, “The Global Governance of the Internet: Bringing the State Back In .

A. Michael Froomkin, “The Internet as a Source of Regulatory Arbitrage,.

Peter Swire, “Elephants and Mice Revisited,.

Community Informatics
Required
Holzer and Tae-Kim (2007) 100 City Survey: Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide. The E-Governance Institute. Rutgers University.


Addditional

Bloggers vs. Blight

The Future Melbourne Plan.

Escher, T., Margetts, H., Petricek, V. & Cox, I. (2006). Governing from the Centre? Comparing the Nodality of Digital Governments. Prepared for delivery at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.

Hood, C. C. & Margetts, H. (2007). The Tools of Government in the Digital Age. Basingstoke: Palgrave Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan. Introduction.

Margetts, H. & Dunleavy, P. (Dirs.) (2007). Government On The Internet. London: National Audit Office.






The first chapter of _Publics and Counterpublics_ by Michael Warner and his
_Trouble with Normal_

Erving Goffman, _Relations in Public_

Julie Cohen, "Cyberspace As/And Space," _Columbia Law Review_, 2007.

Chris Kelty, _Two Bits_

Douglas Thomas, _Hacker Culture_

Bryan Pfaffenberger, "'If I Want It, It¹s OK': Usenet and the (Outer)
Limits of Free Speech," _The information Society_, 1996.

Baron, Naomi S. and Ylva Hard af Segerstad (in press), "Cross-cultural
patterns in mobile phone use:
Public space and reachability in Sweden, the US, and Japan", _New Media &
Society_.

Keith N Hampton, Oren Livio, & Lauren F. Sessions, "The Social Life of
Wireless Urban Spaces: Internet Use, Social Networks, and the Public Realm,"
forthcoming, _Journal of Communication_.

Rohan Samarajiva & Peter Shields, "Telecommunication networks as social
space: implications for research and policy and an exemplar," Media, Culture
& Society, Vol. 19, No. 4, 535-555 (1997)

Greg Downey's "Telegraph Messenger Boys," 2002; and his co-edited a 2004
anthology. Info on both at
http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/~gdowney/index.php

danah boyd's dissertation at
http://www.danah.org/papers/TakenOutOfContext.pdf

Helen Nissenbaum's paper "Privacy as Contextual Integrity",
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=534622

Fran Tonkiss's book "Space, the City and Social Theory" (Polity, 2005)

Robert Sommer. Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design

Humphreys, L. (2005). "Social topography in a wireless era: The
negotiation of public and private space." Journal of Technical Writing
and Communication. 35(3): 367-384.

Humphreys, L. (2005). "Cellphones in public: Social interaction in a
wireless era." New Media & Society. 7(6): 813-836.

Anna McCarthy, Ambient Television, Duke, 2001

Anna McCarthy & Nick Couldry, MediaSpace, Routledge, 2004

NOW/HERE: Space, Time and Modernity, Roger Friedland and Deidre Boden,
particularly "The Compulsion of Proximity," Boden&Molotch.

CULTURE POWER PLACE Exploration in Critical Anthropology, Gupta and Ferguson

Janet Sternberg's dissertation, "Misbehavior in Cyber Places: The Regulation
of Online Conduct in Virtual Communities on the Internet"

Shani Orgad's book, _Storytelling Online: Talking Breast Cancer on the
Internet_ (Peter Lang, 2005)

Lars Qvortrup (ed.), _Virtual Space_

John Monberg's online bibliography, which includes several space/place
sources: https://www.msu.edu/~jmonberg/cmcbib.html

______________________________
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/magazine/23FOB-medium-t.html?_r=1

Kavanaugh, A., Pérez-Quiñones, M., Tedesco, J. and Sanders, W. (in press) Toward a Virtual Town Square in the Era of Web 2.0. In Jeremy Hunsinger, Lisbeth Klastrup and Matthew Allen (Eds.) Handbook of Internet Research. Surrey, UK: Springer.

Kavanaugh, A., Kim, B.J., Schmitz, J. and Pérez-Quiñones, M. 2008. Net Gains in Political Participation: Secondary effects of the Internet on community. Information, Communication and Society, 11(7): 933-963.

Kavanaugh, A., Zin, T.T., Rosson, M.B., Carroll, J.M., Schmitz, J. and Kim, B.J. 2007. Local Groups Online: Political learning and participation. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 16 (September): 375-395.

Kavanaugh, A., Carroll, J.M., Rosson, M.B., Reese, D.D. & Zin, T.T. 2005. Participating in civil society: The case of networked communities. Interacting with Computers 17, 9-33.

Kavanaugh, A. Reese, D.D., Carroll, J.M., & Rosson, M.B. 2003. Weak Ties in Networked Communities, pp. 265-286. In M. Huysman, E. Wenger & V. Wulf (Eds). 2003. Communities and Technologies. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Reprinted (2005) in The Information Society 21 (2), 119-131.

Kavanaugh, A. 2003. When Everyone is Wired: The Impact of the Internet on Families in Networked Communities, pp. 423-437. In J. Turow and A. Kavanaugh (eds.) The Wired Homestead: An MIT Press Sourcebook on the Internet and the Family. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


Kavanaugh, A. and Patterson, S. 2001. The impact of community computer networks on social capital and community involvement. American Behavioral Scientist, 45 (3): 496-509.

Chadwick, A., 2009. Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance. /J/S: Journal of Law and Policy For the Information Society/, 5(1), 1-32.

Gueorguieva, V., 2008. Voters, MySpace, and YouTube: The Impact of Alternative Communication Channels on the 2006 Election Cycle and Beyond. /Social Science Computer Review/, 26(3), 288-300.

Hargittai, E. & Walejko, G. 2008. The Participation Divide: Content Creation and Sharing in the Digital Age. /Information, Communication //and Society/.11(2):239-256.

Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M, Sobel, K, and Chowdury, A (Forthcoming) Twitter Power: Tweets as Electronic Word of Mouth. /Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences and Technology./

//Karpf, D. 2009. Macaca moments reconsidered… YouTube effects or Netroots effects? Submitted for consideration for the YouTube and the 2008 Election Conference.
Leurs, K. 2009. “Be(co)ming cyber Mocro’s: Digital Media, Migration and Glocalized Youth Cultures.” Presented at the Race, Ethnicity, and (New) Media Symposium, May 2, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.
Leurs, K. 2009 "Migrant youth & online hypertext: multiple modes of becoming/belonging." Presented at the 7th European Feminist Research Conference, June 6, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.

Lilleker, D.G. & Jackson, N., 2008. Politicians and Web 2.0: the current bandwagon or changing the mindset? Paper presented at Politics: Web 2.0: An International Conference, Royal Hollloway, UK. Available at: http://newpolcom.rhul.ac.uk/politics-web-20-paper-download/ [Accessed December 30, 2008].

Preece, J. and Shneiderman, B., The Reader-to-Leader Framework: Motivating technology-mediated social participation, AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction 1, 1 (March 2009), 13-32, available at http://aisel.aisnet.org/thci/vol1/iss1/5/ <https://webmail.wmin.ac.uk/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://aisel.aisnet.org/thci/vol1/iss1/5/>

Williams, C.B. & Gulati, G.J., 2007. Social Networks in Political Campaigns: Facebook and the 2006 Midterm Elections. Paper presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, USA. Available at: http://www.bentley.edu/news-events/pdf/Facebook_APSA_2007_final.pdf [Accessed November 26, 2008].


*Bibliographies*

McNutt, J. Electronic Advocacy Bibliography: Web 2.0. Available at http://www.policymagic.org/web2_0.htm


*Conferences*

Politics: Web 2.0: An International Conference. New Political Communication Unit, Department of Politics and International Relations, Royal Holloway, University of London, April 17-18, 2008. Programme and papers available at http://newpolcom.rhul.ac.uk/politics-web-2-0-conference/

4^th International Conference on Communities and Technologies. The Pennsylvania State University, June 25-27, 2009. Programme available at http://cct2009.ist.psu.edu/program.cfm

*
*

*Case Studies*

**Peer-to-Patent. http://www.peertopatent.org/