4/30/2010: Frank Manis said: This is a model syllabus and a good example of a learner-centered curriculum

COMM 323 – Public Deliberation

Gordon Stables [email protected] (213) 740-2759

Course Description: This course is an opportunity to examine the ways in which our culture and governance
are influenced by elements of deliberative democracy. Deliberative democracy functions when individuals
consider, review and engage in matters of public concern. This deliberation takes place across a wide array of
institutions and social practices, but is always concerned with referring questions of legitimacy and authority.
This course reviews historical and contemporary institutions of this democratic discourse and looks ahead to
emerging communication norms.

Student Objectives:

1. At the conclusion of the course, students will be familiar with a theoretical framework to assess the
quality of deliberation across a range of communicative settings.
2. Students will be able to identify and compare prominent deliberative institutions.
3. Students will gain practical experience with evaluating and improving deliberation in their communities.

Assignments:

1. Exams – (20% each, 40% total) The course will include two in-class written examinations that
emphasize the ability to identify and explain significant theoretical and applied dimensions of
deliberative democracy. Each exam builds on the material from earlier sections of the course, but no
single exam is explicitly cumulative.

2. Controversies in Mediated Deliberation – (10%) Each student will identify a recent controversy that was
prominently featured in mediated news coverage. They will define the essential public issues involved in
the controversy and assess how at least two distinct media organizations covered the moment using
Gastil’s “Key Features of Mediated Deliberation” (p. 52). At least one media organization should be a
‘traditional’ news organization such as a broadcast news station, a newspaper or magazine. At least one
media organization should be a non-traditional source, such as a blog or community journalist. After
assessing the coverage, students should suggest how the coverage could have been improved to better
satisfy these key features. (7-10 page paper meeting the guidelines listed at the end of this section).

3. Online Deliberation and Authority: “The Wikipedia Project” – (15%) Each student will be required to
review Wikipedia’s community editing policy and Wikipedia content as examples of deliberative norms.
Each student will then register and provide specific improvements to Wikipedia page. Students should
select pages that have already been identified by the Wikipedia community as requiring additional
information, citations or other adjustments. Students will keep a record of their rationale for the changes
and the feedback from the Wikipedia community regarding these changes. At the conclusion of
assignment, students will submit a paper exploring how their experience can be understood from the
perspective of enriching deliberation of that subject matter. (7-10 page paper meeting the guidelines
listed at the end of this section).

4. Community Deliberation Project – (30%, divided into each phase of the assignment) During the first
days of the course, the class will examine prominent public policy concerns facing the Los Angeles
community. The course will collectively decide on a single issue that will be used as the template for a
semester long project. Once the topic is selected, students will be divided up into research teams with
1
 three sets of responsibilities. First, each group will identify the specific institutions responsible for
examining and determining policy in this arena. Students will analyze how well the organizations adhere
to aspects of deliberative democracy in both in-person meetings and online deliberation. Second,
students will identify, gather, and building information and techniques to enhance public deliberation of
this issue. Finally, each student will prepare an assessment of the current state, and future prospects of
deliberation, for this issue.

5. Participation – (5%) This class relies on daily attendance and active participation by students. Students
are expected to complete and be able to discuss the readings assigned for each class period.

Common Standards for All Course Papers - All papers should all utilize common font and margin settings
(such as Times New Roman 12 point fonts and 1 inch margins). Each paper should follow a consistent style
manual (APA or MLA are the preferred options) and should reflect a writing style consistent with junior-level
college work. The expectations for senior level writing include:

Structure - Quality papers should demonstrate a clear writing plan and basic structure. A clear thesis should be
evident early on the first page to preview the fundamental elements of the essay. This section should also
preview the organizational structure of the project. Each section should reflect an organizing principle which
utilizes previews, summaries, and transitions. You shouldn’t be trying to build suspense in these essays. If you
don’t provide a sense of your final direction in the first two to three paragraphs, you are too weakening the
focus of the essay. Good essays also should include a quality conclusion that draws together the basic details.
Simply finishing your last point doesn’t accomplish this task.

Focus on specific arguments - Your essays are all designed to analyze specific political contexts so it is
important that you closely detail the relevant articles and texts, including properly citing them, and provide
specific analysis. You are free to use your own perspectives to accent these essays, but ultimately they need to
provide analysis of the specific artifacts in question as their primary task.

Writing Style - In any essay, the medium of your language is the technique that you will use to make your
arguments. Even in our visual culture, the ability to make a professional argument in writing is an essential
skill, especially in an argumentation course. When your language begins to resemble the spoken word it loses
its authority and it distracts from your contentions. These essays are intentionally short to provide you with time
to edit and revise your work. Junior level college writing should be free of

 (Thinking out loud comments in parenthesis)

 Misspelled words or words that are poorly spell-checked and come back as different words. There is a
huge credibility problem for your writing when these errors appear.
 Conversational or sarcastic tones. This is a formal essay and it should be treated as such. President Bush
is the appropriate way to first refer to him, regardless of your views.

Use of a style manual - Papers should feature consistent use of a style manual. In some cases students still need
to familiarize themselves with a manual. Common errors include a lack of alphabetical listing of citations,
incomplete citation information (i.e., you need authors in all cases) and the inclusion of the appropriate URL).

Use of qualified sources – In cases where you need or want to make an authoritative claim, you should utilize a
well-qualified source. Suggestions involve experts in the field, scholarly journals, and other professional
sources, including our texts. The easiest google results, especially including Wikipedia, should be treated as
starting points for reference and not references. When essay topics refer to specific concepts covered in the
readings, it is important that these essays display a competent grasp of the material.
2
Evidence should be carefully analyzed before usage. Materials cited as proof of your claims should be timely,
relevant, and well scrutinized. Materials should reflect your awareness of the ideological foundations of all
evidence (i.e., using materials from Karl Rove supporting the Republicans is acceptable; however, the use of
that material should reflect your awareness that this source is highly partisan).

Bibliography & Citations - Citations must be provided for all researched information. Any use of additional
material, even as background, must be cited within the body of the paper and then again in a works cited or
bibliography. The format for these citations should consistently reflect a style manual.

Evaluation Criteria

Grades: Students will earn grades based on the following assignments. Specific instructions for each
assignment will be provided in class. Final course grades are assigned on the following scale

94-100 % = A 80-83 % = B- 67-69 % = D+

90-93 % = A- 77-79 % = C+ 64-66 % = D
87-89 % = B+ 74-76 % = C 60-63 % = D-
84-86 % = B 70-73 % = C- 59 % and below = F

Required Readings:

1. Gastil, John. (2008). Political Communication and Deliberation. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
2. The Course Blackboard site contains a virtual library of other readings listed on the daily schedule

Daily Schedule:

Date Topic Reading 1 Reading 2

12- Introduction to the
Jan course
Kevin Mattson, “Do Americans
Really Want Deliberative
14- Democracy and Democracy?” Rhetoric & Public
Jan Deliberation Gastil Ch. 1 Affairs 5.2 (2002) 327-329
19- Discussion of LA
Jan Based public issues Review of local media and recent issues
G.Thomas Goodnight
“Controversy.” Argument in
Controversy: Proceedings of the
Seventh SCA/AFA Conference on
Argumentation. Parson, Donn W.,
Conversation, ed. Annandale VA: Speech
21- Discussion, & Communication Association,
Jan Controversy Gastil Ch. 2 (1991), 1-14.

3
 John Doble, Jared Bosk, and Samantha
DuPont,“A Report - Public Thinking about
Coping with the Cost of Health Care:
Outcomes of the 2008 National Issues
26- Forums.”June 2009, Prepared for the
Jan National Issue Forums Kettering Foundation
Simson Garfinkel, "Wikipedia and
the Meaning of Truth.” Technology
28- Review, November/ December
Jan Wikipedia Wikipedia: Policies and Gudielines (2008),
Chadwick “Web 2.0: New
Challenges for the Study of
EDemocracy in an Era of
Informational Exuberance” I/S: A
journal of law and policy for the
2- Mediated Deliberation information society, 5:1, (2009), 1-
Feb and Public Opinion Gastil Ch. 3 41.
Shayne Bowman and Chris Willis “We
the Medai: How audiences are shaping the
future of news and information"
4- Commissioned by The Media Center at
Feb Citizen Journalism The American Press Institute, July 2003.
9-
Feb Deliberative Elections Gastil Ch. 4
David Schkade, Cass R. Sunstein,
and Reid Hastie. “What Happened
on Deliberation Day?” U Chicago
Law & Economics, Olin Working
Deliberation Case Bruce A. Ackerman, James S. Fishkin. Paper No. 298 , AEI-Brookings
11- Study: Deliberation Deliberation Day, Yale University Press, Joint Center Working Paper No.
Feb Day (2005) (excerpts). 06-19, (June 2006).
16- How Government
Feb Deliberates Gastil Ch. 5
Albert W. Dzur & Daniel Levin,
Albert W. Dzur and Daniel Levi, “The “The Primacy of the Public: In
“Nation’s Conscience:” Assessing Support of Bioethics Commissions
Deliberative Case Bioethics Commissions as Public as Deliberative Forums” Kennedy
18- Studies: Biomedical Forums” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Inst Ethics J. 2007 Jun;17(2):133-
Feb decision-making Journal 14.4 (2004), 333-360. 42, discussion 143-52.
23-
Feb Exam 1
Robert Carlitz and Rosemary Gunn "e-
Rulemaking: a New Avenue for Public
Engagement ," Journal of Public
25- Deliberation: Vol. 1: No. 1, Article 7,
Feb E-Rulemaking (2005)

4
 Peter Muhlberger "Lessons from the
Virtual Agora Project: The Effects of
Agency, Identity, Information, and
Deliberation on Political Knowledge, by
Peter Muhlberger and Lori M. Weber,"
2- The Virtual Agora Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 2:
Mar Project No. 1, Article 13, (2006).
4- Deliberation in the
Mar Jury Room Gastil Ch. 6
9- Citizens and Officials
Mar in Public Meetings Gastil Ch. 7

Carolyn J. Lukensmeyer, Steve Brigham,

“Taking Democracy to Scale: Creating a
Town Hall Meeting for the Twenty-First
11- Century.” National Civic Review , vol.
Mar Town Hall Meetings 91, no. 4, (Winter 2002)
Spring Break - No
Class 3/16 & 3/18
Community
Deliberation Project
23- Research & Team
Mar meetings
Community
Deliberation Project
25- Research & Team
Mar meetings Submit update reports from each group
Patricia A. Wilson "Deliberative
Planning for Disaster Recovery: Re-
membering New Orleans," Journal of
30- Deliberation Case Public Deliberation: Vol. 5: No. 1,
Mar Study: Disasters Article 1, (2009).
Deliberative
1- Communities and
Apr Societies Gastil Ch. 8

""Are Virtual and Democratic Communities

Feasible?"" Democracy and New Media,
6- Henry Jenkins and David Thorburn,
Apr Virtual Communities editors, 2003, pp. 85-100.

5
 Ducheneaut, N., Yee, N., Nickell, E.,
Moore, R, “The life and death of online
gaming communities: a look at guilds in
8- Online gaming World of Warcraft,” CHI 2007, 839-848,
Apr communities San Jose, CA, 2007
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Lee, K. F.
“Lessons from Facebook: The effect of social
network sites on college students’ social
13- capital.” 9th Symposium on Online
Apr Social Networking Journalism, pp 1-39, (2008).
15- International
Apr Deliberation Gastil Ch. 9
2009 Brookings Blum Roundtable
Deliberative Case “Climate Crisis, Credit Crisis” “Climate
Studies: Global Change Policy: Recommendations to Reach
20- responses to climate Consensus.” The Brookings Institution,
Apr change (September 2009).
Community
Deliberation Project
22- Research & Team
Apr meetings
Community
Deliberation Project
27- Research & Team
Apr meetings
29- Toward a Deliberative
Apr Democracy Gastil Ch. 10
Final Exam

Course Policies

Academic Integrity - The Annenberg School for Communication is committed to upholding the University's
academic integrity code. It is the policy of the School of Communication to report all violations of the code.
Any serious violation or pattern of violations of the academic integrity code will result in the student's expulsion
from the Communication major or minor. The University presumes that you are familiar with its standards and
policies; should you be found to have committed a violation, ignorance of these standards and policies will not
be accepted as an excuse. You should be familiar with the following resources:

* "Guide to Avoiding Plagiarism" addresses issues of paraphrasing, quotations and citations in written
assignments, drawing heavily upon materials used in the university's Writing Program (by Student Judicial
Affairs) http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/SJACS/docs/tig.pdf

* "Understanding and Avoiding Academic Dishonesty" addresses more general issues of academic integrity,
including guidelines for adhering to standards concerning examinations and unauthorized collaboration (by
Student Judicial Affairs) http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/SJACS/docs/tio.pdf

6
* The "2009-2010 SCampus" (the student handbook) contains the university's Student Conduct Code and other
student-related policies. http://www.usc.edu/scampus

Late & Unfinished Work – Students must complete all assignments in order to earn a grade in the course. Any
material turned in late will be reduced one letter grade per calendar day late. Each presentation must be given on
the day assigned.

Grievance Procedure - Occasionally, students are dissatisfied with some dimension of a course. In such cases,
students should first provide a written argument in support of their position to the instructor and request a
meeting with the instructor. All grade appeals on specific assignments must be made within one week of the
return of the assignment.

Special Assistance - Any student requesting academic accommodations based on a disability is required to
register with Disability Services and Programs (DSP) each semester. A letter of verification for approved
accommodations can be obtained from DSP. Please be sure that the letter is delivered as early in the semester as
possible. DSP is located in STU 301 and is open 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and can be
reached at (213) 740-0776.