University of Glasgow - The Internet, Protest and Civil Society – MSc Programme

The Internet, Protest, and Civil Society

Preliminary Course Guide

1.CHARACTER OF THE COURSE

The course will examine how information and communication technologies (ICTs) are used by a variety of sub-state actors, including political parties, NGOs, voluntary and third-sector organisations, terrorists and social movements. The course will explore the following questions:

  1. Can ICTs foster a truly global civil society?
  2. To what extent can ICTs create a multiplier effect for NGOs?
  3. Are ICTs a potential solution to voter apathy in liberal democracies?
  4. Can terrorists act with impunity online due to existing patterns of internet Governance?
  5. Do Web 2.0 applications and the creation of the “user-producer” represent qualitative shifts in democratic internet politics?

In addition, the course will also examine the impact of ICTs upon contemporary nation-states through the three cyber paradigms (i.e. cyber-optimism, cyber-scepticism, and cyber-pessimism). These models will be used to frame the web activism of political activists in three specific political contexts, namely in China, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The course will focus on three critical levels of analysis: the media environment, which embraces the societal elements that regulate political behaviour on the Internet, such as laws, conventions, and principles; content posted on the Internet; and the online audience. Throughout the course, the reading and discussion will focus both on comparing all three levels across different national contexts, and on how the three levels interact within a single nation-state.

2. AIMS

  • To introduce the three cyber paradigms that define how ICTs may alter power relations within contemporary nation-states and examine the validity of these models in contemporary internet politics research.
  • To critically analyse international conceptions of civil liberties on the Internet.
  • To investigate the role of the internet in the emergence of new, alternative political actors and in the revitalization of pre-existing ones
  • To analyse the role of the internet in generating social capital in both authoritarian and democratic polities.
  • To critically analyse the concept of a global civil society.
  • To place internet studies in perspective and provide a sense of where research in this field is likely to be heading in the near future

3. INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES

By the end of the course, students should be able to:

  • Demonstrate a command of the new media models;
  • Critically evaluate the control systems that regulate political activism on the Internet;
  • Assess the implications for global civil society of the ‘digital divide’;
  • Assess the implications for political elites of increasing internet consumption in both democratic and authoritarian nation-states;
  • Evaluate the significance of the internet for a series of established and alternative political actors including social movements, NGOs and third and voluntary sector organisations;
  • Critically analyse how terrorists use the Internet;
  • Assess whether information and communication technologies can generate social capital and foster political participation;
  • Advance reasoned and factually supported arguments in both written and oral formats.

4. CONTENT

The focus of this course is on defining and analysing the relationship between new media i.e. information and communication technologies, and political actors in a range of societies. This task is approached via a study of new media models, global civil society and the digital divide; the impact of information and communication technologies upon both democratic and authoritarian states; emerging forms of electronically fostered participation, and terrorism on the internet.

5. TEACHING

The course will be based on a seminar format that entails significant (mandatory) weekly preparation, in which participants must critically assess, discuss and comment on assigned readings. Each seminar will begin with student presentations that are designed to introduce key concepts. The balance of class time will be devoted to a general and critical discussion of these concepts and readings. Please note that participants are encouraged to purchase the relevant texts to ensure successful participation in the course. However, much of the course relies on articles that are available on line. Students also are encouraged to use e-journals for further research on key concepts.

6. COURSE REQUIREMENTS

This is a seminar-based course, so regular and active class participation is required. If you cannot attend for any reason, please contact the lecturer by email or telephone as soon as possible. In each session, a list of discussion questions will be distributed to students for the following week. It is expected that all students are prepared to answer and discuss all of these questions in the following class.

Each student will be required to make an in-class report, which will have two components:

1)An oral presentation of 15-20 minutes to discuss the central points of your report as well as the initiation of class discussion on the topic;

2)A class handout of not more than one page, with the central points highlighted for the other students and questions to aid class discussion.

Reports will be assigned in the first class session. The written component will be marked and returned (as the formative assessment part of the course).

Indicative assessment(i.e. your mark) is based on an essay of up to 4,000 words. The essay will count for 100% of the final mark on this course.Essay topics can be found at the end of this course guide.

Please review carefully Guidance on Coursework and Assessment in the MSc course guide, especially for notes on the preparation of essays and presentations.

7. PLAGIARISM

Plagiarism is the presentation of another person’s work as your own. The University Calendar asserts that it is “considered as an act of academic fraudulence and is an offence against University discipline.” The University Calendar sets out the procedure that a Head of Department must follow if plagiarism of assessed work is suspected. The presentation of someone else’s essay is clearly fraudulent, however the dividing line between your own work and that of your sources is often less clear. The solution is to always to acknowledge your sources and to use quotations when repeating exactly what someoneelse has written. Generally, you should avoid excessive paraphrasing of other people’s writings, even with acknowledgement; it does not demonstrate that you have understood the material you are reproducing. If in doubt, please seek guidance from your tutor.

8. CORE TEXTS

The course uses a lot of material that can be downloaded from the Internet, with the some readings on short loan in GUL or in e-format (journals or books).

Key books

Chadwick, Andrew and Philip N. Howard. 2009. Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. London: Routledge. E-book in GUL.

Hunsinger, Jeremy, Lisbeth Kalstrup and Matthew Allen. 2010. International Handbook of Internet Research. Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands. E-book in GUL.

Another useful text from which to start exploring internet politics issues is:

Chadwick, Andrew, (2006), Internet Politics: States, Citizens and New Communication Technologies, Oxford: Oxford University Press

This book is available from the Library or for sale from the University bookshop.

Journals

Students may also find relevant articles for the course in a number of journals located in the University Library’s E-Journal section. These include:

-Information, Communication and Society

-Social Science Computer Review

-Political Communication

-European Journal of Communication

-Information Polity

-Policy & Internet

-Review of International Studies

-World Affairs

Online Resources

As the course focuses upon the Internet, students are encouraged to use online sources in both their preparation for seminars and their assessed essay. Some websites including particularly useful tools and resources are:

-

- (Pew Internet and American Life Project)

-

In addition, students might find relevant information in the technology section of broadsheet newspapers such as The Guardian and The Times.

9. OFFICE HOURS

TBC

10. COURSE OVERVIEW (PRELIMINARY)

Week / Date / Topic / Class Theme/Oral Report
1 / 14JAN / New Media Models and Civil Society. / How do we define civil society?
2 / 21JAN / Internet Governance and civil liberties online / To what extent can nation-states limit political protest online?
3 / 28JAN / Digital Divide and Global Civil Society / Assess the implications of the digital divide for the concept of global civil society
4 / 04FEB / Internet and political activism in democratic nation-states / To what extent can ICTs help reinvigorate liberal democracies?
5 / 11FEB / Internet and political activism against authoritarian nation-states / To what extent does the internet pose a threat to authoritarian regimes?
6 / 18FEB / Non-Governmental, Third and Voluntary Sector Organisations and the Internet / How do NGOs use the internet and to what effect? Can the internet foster new types of organisations?
7 / 25FEB / Terrorism and the Internet. / Is the internet a new front in the War on Terror?
8 / 04MAR / Internet, social exclusion and social capital / Can the internet help those traditionally excluded from civic life to become empowered?
9 / 11MAR / Web 2.0 and Political Activism / Does Web 2.0 represent a qualitative shift in internet politics?
10 / 18MAR / Conclusion / Reflection on the main themes emerging from the course and essay surgery.

Here below follows a detailed description of the topics that will be dealt with in each session including a list of relevant literature. Please note that bold indicates mandatory readings required in order to allow active participation in class whilst students are also encouraged to choose from the other suggested titles in order to expand their grasp of the topics.

WEEK 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW MEDIA MODELS AND CIVIL SOCIETY

There are three conceptions of how information and communication technologies might transform political societies, namely the cyber-optimist, cyber-sceptic and cyber-pessimist models. This seminar introduces students to these three theoretical “paradigms” and discusses their validity in contemporary internet politics research and how they can be applied to the study of political activism online. In addition, the session focuses upon defining civil society, with a series of definitions presented for group discussion.

Class discussion will focus upon websites of different civil society actors.Prior to the session, students should prepare by looking at the following websites:

During the session students will be split into small discussion groups after which they will be required to give a brief overview of their chosen civil society actor and a preliminary empirical analysis of their website, i.e. What function does the website serve? Is there an intended audience? How effective is the website in achieving its purpose(s)?

Preliminary reading list:

Barnett, S., (1997), “New media, old problems - New technology and the political process,” European Journal of Communication 12(2): 193-218

* Ester, Peter and Vinken, Henk, (2003), “Debating Civil Society: On the Fear for Civic Decline and Hope for the Internet Alternative,” International Sociology, 18(4): 659-80

* Norris, Pippa (2001). The Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, information poverty and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (especially chapters 1-4, 5, 9 and 11)

Sey, Araba and Castells, Manuel, (2004), “From Media Politics to Networked Politics: The Internet and the Political Process,” in Castells, M., (ed.), The Network Society: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, Northampton (MA): Edward Elgar, pp. 363-81

WEEK 2: INTERNET GOVERNANCE AND CIVIL LIBERTIES ONLINE.

Is the internet an anarchic public sphere in which net users can act with impunity? This session will focus on internet governance, including the norms, self-regulatory mechanisms and national legislation that define acceptable political behaviour online. Students will consider whether the limits on political behaviour online are compatible with the three new media models i.e. do limits on internet freedom militate against the cyber-optimist model? In addition, the discussion focuses on how net users exercise their civil liberties online. Students will consider the purpose of electronically mediated communication for the majority of net users.

Readings:

Caral, J.M.A. (2004) ‘Lessons from ICANN: Is Self-Regulation of the Internet fundamentally flawed?’ International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 12, (1):1-31.

Collins, R. (2004) ‘Three Myths of Internet Governance considered in the context of the UK,’ Prometheus, 22, 3:.267-292.

Cox, N. (2002) ‘The Regulation of Cyberspace and the Loss of National Sovereignty’ Information and Communication Technology Law, 11, 2: 241-254.

* Drezner, D.W. (2004) ‘The Global Governance of the Internet: Bringing the State Back In,’ Political Science Quarterly, 119, 3:476-498.

* Eriksson, Johan and Giacomello, Gianpiero, (2009), “Who Controls the Internet? Beyond the Obstinacy and Obsolescence of the State,” International Studies Review, 11(1): 205-30

Goldsmith, Jack L. and Wu, Tim, (2008), Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Leib, V. (2002) ‘ICANN-EU Can’t: Internet Governance and Europe’s role in the formation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN),’ Telematics and Informatics, 19, 2002, pp.159-171.

* Singh, J. P., (2009), “Multilateral Approaches to Deliberating Internet Governance,” Policy & Internet, 1(1): 91-111

Spears, R and Lea, M. (1994) ‘Panacea or Panopticon: The Hidden Power in Computer Mediated Communication,’ Communication Research 21 (4):.427-459

Wouters, P and Gerbec, D. (2003) ‘Interactive Internet? Studying Mediated Interaction with Publicly Available Search Engines,’ Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 8, 4, [WWW] <URL:

Zittrain, J and Edelman, B. (2005) ‘Localized Google search result exclusions,’ [WWW] <url:

WEEK 3: DIGITAL DIVIDE AND GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY

Are all net users equal or are some more equal than others? This sessionwill analyse issues of internet access and accessibility by considering whether there is a global digital divide, i.e. a gap between those who have the necessary skills and resources to access the internet and those who do not.Different nuances and components of the digital divide will be explored by comparing its underlying causes and impact in both developed and developing countries.In addition, the session introduces the concept of global civil society andconsiders whether it can be sustained in light of the ‘digital divide.’

Readings:

Falk, R. (1995) ‘The World Order between Inter-State Law and the Law of Humanity: the Role of Civil Society Institutions,’ in Archibugu, D and Held, D. Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order, Cambridge: Polity.

* Fine, R and Rai, S. (1997) Civil Society: Democratic Perspectives, London: Frank Cass.

Germain, Randall D. and Kenny, Michael, (eds.), (2005), Idea of Global Civil Society: Ethics and Politics in a Globalising Era, London: Routledge (esp. chapters 1, 5, 6, 12)

Held, D. (1995) Democracy and the Global Order, Cambridge: Polity.

Kasfir, N. (1998) Civil Society and Democracy in Africa, London: Frank Cass.

* Norris, P. (2001)The Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, information poverty and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sociology A435 NOR2. SHORT LOAN IN MAIN LIBRARY

Nye, J. (2004) Soft Power New York: Public Affairs.

Rose, R. (2005) “Language, Soft Power and Asymmetrical Internet Communication,” E-Democracy Centre, Universite de Geneve.

[WWW]<URL:

Selwyn, N, Gorard, S and Furlong, J. (2005) ‘Whose Internet is it Anyway? Exploring adults’ use of the Internet in everyday life’ European Journal of Communication, 20, 1, 2005, pp.5-26.

Smith, Aaron et al., (2009), The Internet and Civic Engagement, Washington: Pew Internet and American Life Project, available online at:

* Walzer, M. (1995) Towards a Global Civil Society, International Political Currents, Volume 1, Oxford: Berghahn Books. (part I)

* Warschauer, Mark, (2004), Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide, Cambridge (MA)/London: MIT Press (Intro and chapters 6 & 7)

White, G. (1993) ‘Civil Society, Democratization and Development (1) Clearing the Analytical Ground,’ Democratization, 1, (3):376-390.

WEEK 4: INTERNET AND POLITICAL ACTIVISM IN DEMOCRATIC NATION-STATES.

Can information and communication technologies reinvigorate liberal democracies? Does the internet enable new forms of political deliberation amongst citizens of democratic nation-states or does it merely reproduce established offline political divisions ad participation patterns? Cyber-optimists assert that the Internet can reduce barriers to political inclusion and increase public interest in constitutional politics. Cyber-sceptics maintain instead that online engagement is nothing but “politics as usual.” This session considers the evidence for and against each of these positions, assessing the impact of both e-democracy projects in the United States and the content of political bulletin boards in the United Kingdom.

Readings:

Albrecht, Steffen, (2006), “Whose Voice is Heard in Online Deliberation? A Study of Participation and Representation in Political Debates on the Internet,” Information, Communication and Society, 9(1): 62-82

Arnstein, Sherry R., (1969), “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal of the American Planning Association 35(4): 216-24

Barnett, S. 1997. ‘New media, old problems - New technology and the political process,’European Journal of Communication 12(2): 193-218

Ferdinand, Peter, (ed.),(2000), The Internet, Democracy and Democratization, London: Cass

* Gibson, R.K and Ward, S. (2000) Reinvigorating Democracy? British Politics and the Internet, Aldershot: Ashgate, (Introduction and chapters 1, 6 and 11)

Gibson, R, Nixon, P and Ward,S. (eds) (2003)Net Gain?: Political Parties and the Internet, London: Routledge.

Gibson, Rachel, Margolis, Michael, Resnick, David and Ward, Stephen, (2003), “Election Campaign on the WWW in the USA and UK: A Comparative Analysis,” Party Politics, 9(1): 47-75

* Gibson, Rachel, Lusoli, Wainer, and Ward, Stephen, (2005), “Online participation in the UK: testing a ‘contextualised’ model of internet effects,” British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7(4): 561-83

Hanssen, Gro Sandkjaer, (2007), “ICT in Norwegian Local Government – Empowering the Politicians?,” Local Government Studies 33(3): 355-82

Locke, T. (1999) ‘Participation, Inclusion, Exclusion, and Netactivism,’ in Hague, B.N and Loader, B.D., Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age, London: Routledge