Module POL2120 for 2021/2
- Overview
- Aims and Learning Outcomes
- Module Content
- Indicative Reading List
- Assessment
Undergraduate Module Descriptor
POL2120: Democratic Innovations, Deliberation and Public Policy
This module descriptor refers to the 2021/2 academic year.
How this Module is Assessed
In the tables below, you will see reference to 'ILO's. An ILO is an Intended Learning Outcome - see Aims and Learning Outcomes for details of the ILOs for this module.
Formative Assessment
A formative assessment is designed to give you feedback on your understanding of the module content but it will not count towards your mark for the module.
| Form of assessment | Size of the assessment (eg length / duration) | ILOs assessed | Feedback method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Essay plan | 500 words | 1-8 | Written (by email or verbally in office hours according to students preference) |
| Case study abstract | 300 words | 1-8 | Written (by email or verbally in office hours according to students preference) |
Summative Assessment
A summative assessment counts towards your mark for the module. The table below tells you what percentage of your mark will come from which type of assessment.
| Coursework | Written exams | Practical exams |
|---|---|---|
| 100 | 0 | 0 |
...and this table provides further details on the summative assessments for this module.
| Form of assessment | % of credit | Size of the assessment (eg length / duration) | ILOs assessed | Feedback method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essay | 50 | 2000 words | 1-8 | Written feedback |
| Case Study a detailed investigation and evaluation of a specific democratic innovation as applied in a particular context or contexts | 50 | 2000 words | 1-8 | Written feedback |
Re-assessment
Re-assessment takes place when the summative assessment has not been completed by the original deadline, and the student has been allowed to refer or defer it to a later date (this only happens following certain criteria and is always subject to exam board approval). For obvious reasons, re-assessments cannot be the same as the original assessment and so these alternatives are set. In cases where the form of assessment is the same, the content will nevertheless be different.
| Original form of assessment | Form of re-assessment | ILOs re-assessed | Timescale for re-assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Essay | Essay, 2000 words (50%) | 1-8 | August/September Reassessment Period |
| Case study | Case study, 2000 words (50%) | 1-8 | August/September Reassessment Period |
Indicative Reading List
This reading list is indicative - i.e. it provides an idea of texts that may be useful to you on this module, but it is not considered to be a confirmed or compulsory reading list for this module.
Text books/key books
- Escobar, O. and Elstub, S. Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance. Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, M.A., USA: Edward Elgar.
- Geissel, B. and Newton, K. (eds), Evaluating Democratic Innovations. Curing the Democratic Malaise?, London and New York: Routledge.
- Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sample of articles
- Andersen, V. N. and Hansen, K. M. (2007). How Deliberation Makes Better Citizens: The Danish Deliberative Poll on the Euro. European Journal of Political Research, 46: 531–56.
- Böker, M. (2017). Justification, Critique and Deliberative Legitimacy: The Limits of Mini-Publics. Contemporary Political Theory, 16: 19–40.
- Bo?ker, M. and S. Elstub (2015), ‘The possibility of critical mini-publics: Realpolitik and normative cycles in democratic theory’, Representation.
- Avritzer, L. 2012. ‘The different designs of public participation in Brazil’, Critical Policy Studies. 6:2 113-127
- Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., & Milewicz, K. (2011). ‘Toward a deliberative global citizens’ assembly.’ Global Policy, 2(1), 33-42.
- Dryzek, J.S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J.N., Felicetti, A. Warren, M.E. 2019.‘The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation’.Science, 363(6432),1144-46. .
- Fishkin, J. (2020). Cristina Lafont’s Challenge to Deliberative Minipublics. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 16(2), 56–62. DOI: http://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.394
- Goodin, R.E. & Dryzek, J.S. 2006. ‘Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics’. Politics & Society, 34: 2, 219-244.
- Grönlund, K., Herne, K., and Setälä, M. (2015). Does Enclave Deliberation Polarize Opinions? Political Behavior, 37: 995–1020.
- Hendriks, C. M. (2016). Coupling Citizens and Elites in Deliberative Systems: The Role of Institutional Design. European Journal of Political Research, 55: 43–60.
- Lafont, C. (2015). Deliberation, Participation and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Minipublics Shape Public Policy? Journal of Political Philosophy, 23: 40–63.
- Lafont, C. 2017. Can Democracy be Deliberative & Participatory? The Democratic Case for Political Uses of Mini-Publics, Daedalus , 146:3, 85-105. https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.1162/DAED_a_00449#fn9
- Parthasarathy, Ramya; Rao, Vijayendra. 2017. Deliberative Democracy in India. Policy Research Working Paper;No. 7995. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/26245 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.
- Strandberg, K. and Grönlund, K. (2018) ‘Online deliberation’, In Andre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of deliberative Democracy.
