Campaigning for Change: Advocacy, Activism, and Policy in the Digital Age

In partnership with CAPA International Education Campaigning for Change: Advocacy, Activism, and Policy in the Digital Age COURSE DESIGNATOR SDNY 3029 NUMBER OF CREDITS 3 LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION English CONTACT HOURS 45 COURSE DESCRIPTION This course introduces students to theories and concepts of the relationship between civil society advocacy, policy and state institutions, and social change in the digital age. Students will engage with real world advocacy campaigns designed to exploit digital technology and tools to gain an understanding of the application of theory and concepts in this context. Local, national, and transnational case studies will be examined. Students will then learn to apply specific campaign strategies by creating a prototype campaign on a current issue of policy and social change. COURSE OBJECTIVES This course aims to develop in students an understanding of how social change can be affected by civil society through the policy process and the role of digital strategies in achieving this. The course combines theory with practice and in depth learning achieved through real world application. LEARNING OUTCOMES Following completion of this course, students should be able to: 1. Articulate the relationship between advocacy, policy practice and policy change. 2. Do in depth analysis of and define social problems and frame the issues in policy terms. 3. Use policy and advocacy frameworks and concepts to map, analyze and strategize stakeholder/interest group positions and their role in the policy process and outcomes. 4. Critically evaluate civil society advocacy campaigns in the digital / online arena. 5. Demonstrate a strong awareness of the complex and dynamic nature of advocacy work (negotiation, facilitation and collaboration). 6. Critically engage with a range of technologies (such as the internet, media, etc.) in the design and development of a policy advocacy campaign. 7. Apply theory to real world social and policy issues and be able to construct a basic digital campaign strategy and prototype. METHODOLOGY This unit is taught in blended mode using both classroom seminars and online learning activities. Seminars involve student presentations, lectures, class discussion and debate, and group project work. Each seminar will introduce key concepts, illustrate with reference to case studies, historical context and emerging issues, and reinforce through discussion of relevant analysis in the academic and institutional literature. Students are expected to read in advance of classes and be fully prepared to discuss assigned readings and actively participate in discussions and class exercises. The teaching strategies are designed to encourage active learning by all students. REQUIRED READING AND RESOURCES There is no required textbook for this course. Readings drawn from academic journals, books, and other sources are set as pre-reading for each seminar and are available through the online learning system. The following text provides a good overview of the subject with case studies and conceptual frameworks: Unsicker J. (2013). Confronting Power The Practice of Policy Advocacy. Kumarian Press, Stirling, Virginia

OTHER REFERENCES Association for Progressive Communication, Advocacy Strategies and Approaches http://www.apc.org/en/node/9456 Digital Activism Research Project, University of Washington http://digital-activism.org/about/about-theproject/ including Digital activism bibliography http://digital-activism.org/resources/resources/ Hands, J. (2011). @ is for activism: dissent, resistance and rebellion in digital culture. NY: Pluto. Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Centre on Media, Politics and Public Policy: Digital activism and organizing: Research review and reading list, http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/citizenaction/digital-activism-organizing-theory-research-review-reading-list Lindgren, S. (2013). New Noise: a cultural sociology of digital disruption. NY: Peter Lang Swedish Institute for Public Administration (2011). Advocacy and Policy Influencing for Social Change. Technical Assistance for Civil Society Organizations TACSO, Sarajevo. http://www.tacso.org/doc/doc_manual_5.pdf Thomas, A. and Giles M. (eds.) (2007). Research Skills for Policy and Development, Los Angeles: Sage GRADING PENALTIES FOR WORK SUBMITTED LATE Assignments received after the due date will be reduced by five percent (5%) of the possible grade for the piece of work being assessed per day, up to seven (7) days after the due date. Work submitted more than seven (7) days after the due date will not be marked, unless arrangements have been made prior to the due date for an extension. CLASS PARTICIPATION Participation is a vital part of your grade. CAPA has a mandatory attendance policy. Students are also expected to participate actively and critically in class discussions, and the participation portion of the class will be graded accordingly. Students must complete required reading BEFORE the class. Students are expected to arrive on time, certainly before five minutes past the class start time, and not to leave until the class ends. If you have a problem that makes you late, or forces you to leave early, this must be discussed with the Director of Academic Affairs. Students are expected to be quiet during classes unless, of course, class participation is required. Phones and computers are not to be used during the class unless authorized by the lecturer for academic purposes. (Refer below for penalties that will apply.) CRITERIA FOR GRADING AND GRADING STANDARDS Grading Rubric A 93+ Achievement that is outstanding relative to the level necessary to meet course requirements. A- 90-92 B+ 87-89 B 83-86 B- 80-82 C+ 77-79 C 73-76 C- 70-72 D+ 67-69 D 60-66 Achievement that is significantly above the level necessary to meet course requirements. Achievement that meets the course requirements in every respect. Achievement that is worthy of credit even though it fails to meet fully the course requirements. F <59 Represents failure (or no credit) and signifies that the work was either (1) completed but at a level of achievement that is not worthy of credit or (2) was not completed and there was no agreement between the instructor and the student that the student would be awarded an I. GRADING FOR ASSIGNMENTS Participation 15% Group Tutorial Presentation 15% Campaign evaluation in online discussion forums 20% PAGE 2

Group project: campaign design and prototype 50% SCHEDULE AND ASSIGNMENTS Course Topics Seminar 1: What is advocacy? What is activism? Introduction to advocacy and activism in relation to influencing and changing public policy, including differentiating between these and other forms of influence such as lobbying. Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Hands, J. (2011). @ is for activism: dissent, resistance and rebellion in digital culture. NY: Pluto. Chapter 1 Activism and Technology, pp. 23-47 Public Interest Advocacy Centre (2003) Working the System: A Guide for Citizens, Consumers and Communities, Policy Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC). Chapter 1 - Reinventing Advocacy, pp. 2-4 Swedish Institute for Public Administration (2011). Advocacy and Policy Influencing for Social Change. Technical Assistance for Civil Society Organizations TACSO, Sarajevo. Politics and Policy Influencing Key Concepts pp. 18-29. http://www.tacso.org/doc/doc_manual_5.pdf Seminar 2 The Policy Process Colebatch s conceptual framework of the policy process is introduced as a basis for understanding how a problem is framed as an issue for the policy agenda. Colebatch, H.K. (2009), Policy, Open University Press: Berkshire, UK. Chapter 3 - What s going on?, pp. 23-46. Seminar 3 Framing the issue and setting the agenda Process and strategies for framing an issue in policy terms and for appeal to stakeholders, and getting it onto the policy agenda. Unsicker J. (2013). Confronting Power The Practice of Policy Advocacy. Kumarian Press, Stirling, Virginia. Chapter 7 Politics: Formal and non-formal power, pp. 127-141 Howlett, M. and Ramesh, M. (2003) Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, Toronto: Oxford University Press. Ch. 5 Agenda-setting: Policy determinants, policy ideas, and policy windows, pp. 120-142 Seminar 4 Stakeholders, interest groups, insiders/outsiders, and networks Examination of the different actors and their roles both in relation to the advocacy campaign and the policy process. Developing strategies for engaging and managing these groups. Understanding the impact of technology and the Internet on structures of influence. Week 4 Lindgren, S. (2013). New Noise: a cultural sociology of digital disruption. NY: Peter Lang. Chapter 10 A Cultural Sociology of Digital Disruption, pp. 139-150 Mayers, J. (2005) Stakeholder power analysis, Power tools series, International Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK. Available online: http://www.policypowertools.org/tools/understanding/spa.html Castells, M. (2007). Communication, Power, and Counter-Power in the Network Society. PAGE 3

International Journal of Communication, 1 (2007):238-266 Earl, J. (2010). The Dynamics of Protest-related Diffusion on the Web. Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 13, Issue 2:209-225 Pettinicchio, D (2012) Institutional Activism: Reconsidering the Insider/Outsider Dichotomy, 6 (6), 499-510 Swedish Institute for Public Administration (2011). Advocacy and Policy Influencing for Social Change. Technical Assistance for Civil Society Organizations TACSO, Sarajevo. Strategizing the Early Message Stakeholders, pp.92-105 http://www.tacso.org/doc/doc_manual_5.pdf Seminar 5 Making the appeal and use of evidence Crafting the message so as to appeal to different stakeholders. The value of research and evidence in advocacy. Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Unsicker J. (2013). Confronting Power The Practice of Policy Advocacy. Kumarian Press, Stirling, Virginia. Chapter 9 Advocacy Communications: (Re)framing and Storytelling, pp. 191-211 Mayer, S. (2007) Using Evidence in Advocacy, in: Thomas, A. and Giles M. (eds.) Research Skills for Policy and Development, Los Angeles: Sage, pp. 254-274 Seminar 6 Developing a campaign The process of campaign development and the additional requirements for a digital campaign. Development of a plan for the group project Unsicker J. (2013). Confronting Power The Practice of Policy Advocacy. Kumarian Press, Stirling, Virginia. Chapter 2 Conceptual Maps, pp. 11-24 Ganz, M. Organizing. The Hauser Centre for Non-Profit Organizations, at Harvard University. Website http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k2139&pageid=icb.page12185 Activist (website) http://www.activist.co.za/ag3nt/system/about_home.php Getup (website) http://www.getup.org.au/ Seminar 7 Technology: freedom and constraints Technology tools; web services for campaigns; and the limitations on freedom arising from surveillance and other threats. Deibert, R., Rohozinsk, R. (2010). Liberation vs Control: The Future of Cyberspace. Journal of Democracy, Vol. 21, Issue 4:43-57 Film: 10 Tactics, Directed by Tactical Technology Collective, 2009 http://youtu.be/tkqdjysn5no See also the companion website with tools https://www.tacticaltech.org/projects?type=8 Seminar 8 Activism, cyberactivism, slactivism, and clicktivism How effective is digital advocacy and activism vis-à-vis offline strategies? Week 8 Christensen, H.S. (2011). Political activities on the Internet: Slactivism or political participation by other means? First Monday, Vol. 16:2-7, http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3336/2767 Karpf, D. (2010). Online Political Mobilization from the Advocacy Group's Perspective: PAGE 4

Looking Beyond Clicktivism. Policy & Internet, December 2010, Vol. 2, Issue 4, 7 41 Seminar 9 Digital strategy Part A: awareness, mobilization, reaction Bennett, W.L., Segerberg, A. (2011). Digital Media and the Personalization of Collective Action. Information, Communication & Society, Vol.14(6), p.770-799 Hands, J. (2011). @ is for activism: dissent, resistance and rebellion in digital culture. NY: Pluto. Chapter 5 Mobil(e)isation, pp. 124-141 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Karpf, D. (2008). Understanding Blogspace. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, Vol. 5, Issue 4:369-385 Vissers, S., Stolle, D. (2010) Spill-over effects between Facebook and on/offline political participation? Evidence from a two-wave panel study. Paper prepared for the panel New Media Use Among Citizens and Parties held during the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Meeting, June 15-17, 2012 in Edmonton, AB http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers- 2012/vissers-stolle.pdf Wallsten, K. (2010) Yes We Can : How Online Viewership, Blog Discussion, Campaign Statements, and Mainstream Media Coverage Produced a Viral Video Phenomenon. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7:163 181 Seminar 10 Prototype workshop Seminar 11 Digital Strategy Part B: feedback and evaluation Breindl, Y. (2012). Assessing Success in Internet Campaigning: The Case of Digital Rights Advocacy in the European Union. Information, Communication & Society, 2012, 1-22 Seminar 12 - Critical reflection on digital advocacy and activism ASSESSMENT 1: CLASS PARTICIPATION (15%) Each week, your Lecturer will look for lively discussion and debate. You are expected to read the appropriate material listed in the class schedule before each class. This is a mark for participation, NOT attendance (which is compulsory). Your contribution to online discussion forums will also be factored into your participation grade. ASSESSMENT 2: GROUP TUTORIAL PRESENTATION (15%) Class presentations are an established component of assessment for students in this subject. The purpose of the group tutorial presentation is to encourage active and deep learning of the core subject matter of the course. In the first seminar you will form into groups of 2 or 3. Each group will be assigned to a future seminar. Your task is to identify a social policy issue which is being debated and argued by the State and civil society advocacy groups. You will analysis this issue in policy and advocacy terms drawing on relevant theories and concepts. Assessment will be based on the demonstrated level of understanding of key concepts, the overall professionalism of the presentation, and the extent to which the presentation engages the class in discussion. Presentations must also reference the literature and include a bibliography. ASSESSMENT 3: CAMPAIGN EVALUATIONS IN WEEKLY ONLINE DISCUSSION FORUMS (20%) After each seminar (beginning seminar 2 and through to seminar 8), an advocacy campaign case study will be posted on Moodle and you will be asked to evaluate the campaign in terms of the concepts covered in the preceding seminar. Your response and reflection will be posted in an online discussion forum. ASSESSMENT 4: GROUP PROJECT - CAMPAIGN DESIGN AND PROTOTYPE (50%) The major assessment task is to design an advocacy campaign for a current issue demanding a policy change / response and to build a prototype for a digital campaign. In the first seminar you will be placed into groups of 3 or 4 based on each group having at least one member with a base level of technical skills to build the prototype. The emphasis in this task is not on the aesthetics of your prototype but rather the campaign strategies and their intended use of digital technology and tools for execution. The prototype will be accompanied by a 1000 word strategy document outlining the problem, the PAGE 5

policy issue that this gives rise to, the strategy for getting the issue onto the policy agenda, and the campaign strategy to influence the policy outcome. ATTENDANCE POLICY Students must attend all classes and gallery visits and be able to certificate genuine absences. Any absence should be justifiable in terms only of illness, religious holiday or an internship interview. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Academic integrity is essential to a positive teaching and learning environment. All students enrolled in University courses are expected to complete coursework responsibilities with fairness and honesty. Failure to do so by seeking unfair advantage over others or misrepresenting someone else s work as your own, can result in disciplinary action. The University Student Conduct Code defines scholastic dishonesty as follows: SCHOLASTIC DISHONESTY Scholastic dishonesty means plagiarizing; cheating on assignments or examinations; engaging in unauthorized collaboration on academic work; taking, acquiring, or using test materials without faculty permission; submitting false or incomplete records of academic achievement; acting alone or in cooperation with another to falsify records or to obtain dishonestly grades, honors, awards, or professional endorsement; altering forging, or misusing a University academic record; or fabricating or falsifying data, research procedures, or data analysis. Within this course, a student responsible for scholastic dishonesty can be assigned a penalty up to and including an F or N for the course. If you have any questions regarding the expectations for a specific assignment or exam, ask. STUDENT CONDUCT The University of Minnesota has specific policies concerning student conduct and student needs. This information can be found on the Learning Abroad Center website. PAGE 6