Course Structure: The course is divided into 3 sections

1. Information Policy Theory
2. Information Policy in Practice
3. Shaping Future Information Policies

Course Objectives: The primary objectives of this course are as follows

• Analyze the major information policy issues of the 21st century.
• Assess the social, political and economic implications of the emerging national and global information systems.
• Consider the players and themes that result from a discourse about information policy.
• Recommend information policy for the new Administration and Congress.

Learning Objectives: Students completing the course will

• Understand the complexities of policy making in the United States. 
• Assess the means of addressing information-related problems and processes through legislative, administrative, judicial and/or other government actions. 
• Be equipped to identify key stakeholders and their viewpoints, underlying goals and values, principles, and strategies for promoting information policy changes.
• Demonstrate an understanding of major policy issues important to the information, communication, and technology professions and to the public at large regarding privacy, government information, secrecy, information equity, and copyright.
• Analyze policy issues to recognize the strengths, weaknesses, costs, consequences and tradeoffs of information policies.
• Be able to recognize, evaluate and determine emerging policy issues.

Course Grading: Rutgers allows only the following letter grades. Grade ranges and midpoints are as follows

A    Superior—excellent, exceptional. Fulfills both the terms of the assignment and shows evidence of out-of-the-ordinary original, creative, analytical, and interesting thought.

B+      

B    Good—competent, respectable, solid. Fulfills the terms of the assignment thoroughly and thoughtfully, with some evidence of originality and creativity.

C+   

C    Acceptable—satisfactory, average, adequate. Fulfills the terms of the assignment.

F     Failing—inadequate, pervasive problems. Does not approximate the terms of the assignment.

Borderline grades are resolved by considering attendance, participation, insights, spontaneous knowledge of the readings, contributions, and generally good disposition.

Course Assignments:

Students will make presentations, write papers, and participate in class and online discussions. Presentations may utilize PowerPoint or other technologies, but these are not required.  Students will post online presentations and submit written assignments  (double spaced in APA format) through eCompanion by 5:00pm EST on the date due.  Papers for review by small groups will be posted to Doc Sharing; revised drafts of assignments and the final paper should be posted to the Dropbox.  Class participation is expected; students should come to class each week ready to contribute to discussions based on the assigned readings and review of current events related to information policy. Students will also participate in online discussions.

Web Resources: eCompanion will contain the syllabus, readings, and class presentations.  Students will discuss their assignments in small groups through eCompanion.  

Course Listserv: The course has a listserv: Info-Policy@rams.rutgers.list.edu 

Participation: Success in the course will depend on reading, Web work, thinking about the material, participating in discussions, planning for the major projects and completing them in a professional manner. Students are responsible for staying current with the reading and the other work in the course. If you need to miss a session because of illness or religious reasons, inform the instructor. Attendance at all class sessions is expected. It will be impossible to complete the active learning sections of the course without full participation.

In Class Participation: 15%. Attendance and participation are expected for this course.  Students are encouraged to join the conversation each week in class.  In addition to reading assigned materials, students should stay current about information policy news. Examples of current issues will help illuminate the theoretical components of the course. Read the New York Times, relevant blogs and web sites, and subscribe to news feed on relevant topics.  A number of advocacy organizations provide news items that focus specifically on information policy developments including:  

• Benton Foundation, Headlines, http://www.benton.org/headlines (subscribe through Benton’s web site for daily headlines sent to your e-mail address).
•  American Library Association (ALA) District Dispatch, http://www.wo.ala.org/districtdispatch/ (subscribe to RSS or e-mail feeds—click on “Subscribe by E-mail or RSS” on the right side of the screen)
• Electronic Frontier Foundation EFFECTOR, http://www.eff.org (Subscribe to EFFector on right side of the screen)
• Center for Democracy and Technology, http://www.cdt.org (Subscribe to RSS feeds and/or read the CDT blog)
• Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), http://epic.org/ (Subscribe to EPIC Alert on upper left hand corner of home page)
• Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (PRC), http://www.privacyrights.org/ (Join the mailing list on left side of home page—scroll down)
• Public Knowledge (PK), http://www.publicknowledge.org/ (Subscribe to the mailing list by scrolling down the right side of the home page)
• Other--Students are welcome to read and suggest others.

Online participation: 15%.  Students will participate in discussion online through eCompanion.  Two assignments will require students to make a presentation to their small groups, then discuss them and revise their presentations in response to the group’s deliberations. This is NOT a lecture-based class. It is, instead, a class that is based on collective discussions. Policy is very subjective, and we may not always agree. A mutual level of respect towards each other is EXPECTED and REQUIRED. Students will deliberate about the issues presented in discussion, discussing the strengths, weaknesses, costs, consequences and tradeoffs of different approaches to solving public problems. Be prepared for each class to avoid losing points on participation!

The instructor will assign students to a small group for discussion of several topics online.  Each member of the small group will lead a discussion.  More details at the first class.  

Current Information Policy Issue Small Group Discussion:  20%.  Each student will prepare a 2-3 page analysis of a current information policy issue that incorporates the framework and theories discussed in Part 1 of the course. Students will post their analyses to the Course eCompanion website where they will lead members of the small group in a discussion/deliberation about them, followed by revisions incorporated by the lead student.  One student from the group will post each week from Week 3 through Week 6. The group will decide the order of presentations. Details will come in Week 1. 

Information Policy Making Agency Small Group Discussion: 20%. Students will prepare a 2-3 page analysis of a federal or international agency that plays a role in information policy. They will post their analysis to the Course eCompanion website and lead members of the small group in a discussion/deliberation, followed by revisions incorporated by the lead student. One student from the group will post each week from Week 7 through Week 12. The group will decide the order of presentations. Details will come in Week 5.  

Policy Recommendation for the New President and Congress: 30%. The final project will be built upon the concepts covered in the course. The instructor will suggest paper topics throughout the course. Students may also propose their own topics, for approval by the instructor. Students will prepare a 5-page maximum document (double spaced using APA style)

1.  Provide a substantive summary of the key issues, including the policy goals and tensions;
2.  Define the stakeholders and their positions on the issues;
3.  Propose future policy changes related to the issues;
4.  Develop a list of talking points to influence policymakers regarding your stance on the issue. 

Students should review the literature on the topic, including Congressional hearings, other government documents, and papers produced by advocacy groups.  They can cite papers submitted to the new Administration by various stakeholders, but should not simply duplicate the case made by advocacy organizations.  Rather, they can indicate the positions of various stakeholders and cite their proposals in the section on stakeholders and their positions. 

Submit a short 2-paragraph abstract of the paper for approval by the instructor to the eCompanion dropbox by April 1.  Submit the final paper to the “Future Policies” dropbox on eCompanion. Prepare a 5-minute presentation based on 3 key talking points to be given to the appropriate “legislative committee” (your classmates) on the last day of the semester. Due April 29.

Academic Integrity: Academic integrity means, among other things

• Develop and write all of your own assignments.
• Show in detail where the materials you use in your papers come from.
• Create citations whether you are paraphrasing authors or quoting them directly. Be sure always to show source and page number within the assignment and include a bibliography.

If you are doubtful about any issue related to plagiarism or scholastic dishonesty, please discuss it with the instructor.

The consequences of scholastic dishonesty are very serious. Rutgers’ academic integrity policy is at http://ctaar.rutgers.edu/integrity/policy.html. An overview of this policy may be found at http://cat.rutgers.edu/integrity/student.html. Multimedia presentations about academic integrity may be found at http://academicintegrity.rutgers.edu/multimedia.shtml and http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/douglass/sal/plagiarism/intro.html. Student Help at Rutgers:

Students seeking help with the content of this course should contact the instructor either during office hours, or make a separate appointment. Students seeking help with the scheduling of classes or registration should contact the SCILS Student Services Office in Room 214 of the SCILS Building.

A great deal of information is available on the SCILS website, including course descriptions and details about all degree programs: http://scils.rutgers.edu  

Rutgers has Learning Centers on each campus where any student can obtain tutoring and other help; for information, check http://lrc.rutgers.edu/  Rutgers also has a Writing Program where students can obtain help with writing skills and assignments:

http://plangere.rutgers.edu/index.html

SCILS IT Services offers help with a variety of technology problems. They are located in the SCILS Building in Room 120 (first floor); 732-932-7500 x8999; help@scils.rutgers.edu.
 

Course Organization:  

WEEK 1 – Welcome

Welcome and introductions

Review of syllabus, readings, and assignments

Designation of small groups

Overview of concepts: Democracy, Public Policy, Information

   WEEK 2 – Policy Goals, Policy Problems, and Policy Stakeholders Stone, Chapters 1-5.  Stone, Chapters 6-10. 

Blomgren Bingham, L., Nabatchi, T. & O’Leary, R. (2005). The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government. Public Administration Review, 65, 547–558. (Available through Proquest)

WEEK 3  – The Idea of Information; Introduction to Information Policy Braman, Chapters 1 & 2. Current Information Policy Small Group Discussion (Presenter 1) 

Browne, Mairead. (1997). “The Field of Information Policy: 1. Fundamental Concepts.” Journal of Information Science, 23, 261-275. (pdf available)

Horton, F. W. (1987). “Information Policy: The National Information Policy Chameleon.” Information Management Review, 3, 79-84. (pdf available) 

Overman, E.S. and Cahill, A.G. (1990). “Information Policy: A Study of Values in the Policy Process,” Policy Studies Review, 9 (4): 803–818. (Available through Ebsco Host Academic Premier)

Schement, Jorge Reina. (2002). “Information,” in Jorge Reina Schement, ed. (2002) Encyclopedia of Information and Communication. New York: Macmillan, V. 2: 421-426. (Typescript pdf available)

 Schement, Jorge Reina. (1993). "An Etymological Exploration of the Links Between Information and Communication," Information and Behavior. Vol. 4:173-187. (Typescript pdf available)  WEEK 4 -- Historical Perspectives of Information Policy; The U.S. Constitution and Beyond

textbook: Braman, Chapters 3 & 4.

Current Information Policy Small Group Discussion (Presenter 2) 

Browne, Mairead. (1997). The Field of Information Policy: 2. Redefining Boundaries and Methodologies. Journal of Information Science, 23, 339–351. (pdf available)

Schement, Jorge Reina and Curtis, Terry, (1995/1997) Tendencies and Tensions of the Information Age: The Production and Consumption of Information in the United States, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications, Chapter 5. (Typescript pdf available)

Willmore, L. (2002). “Government Policies toward Information and Communication Technologies: A Historical Perspective,” Journal of Information Science, 28, 89–96. (Available through Highwire Press)

The Declaration of Independence – visit www.archives.gov

The U.S. Constitution – visit www.archives.gov

WEEK 5 –Information Rights, Responsibilities, and PrinciplesCurrent Information Policy Small Group Discussion (Presenter 3)Information Policy Making Agency Analysis Topics Presented and Discussed Cramer, Benjamin. (2009). “The Human Right to Information, the Environment and Information About the Environment: From the Universal Declaration to the Aarhus Convention,” Communication Law and Policy, 14 (1): 73-103. (Available through Ebsco Host Communication and Mass Media Complete) 

Curtis, Terry and Jorge Reina Schement. (1995).  “Communication Rights,” in Toward an Information Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. (Typescript pdf available)

Kleve, Pieter and Richard De Mulder. (May 2008). “Privacy Protection and the Right to Information: In Search of a New Balance, Computer Law & Security Report, 24 (3): 223-32. (Available through Science Direct)

Schement, Jorge Reina. (1995). “Introduction: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Nature of Information,” in Toward an Information Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. (Typescript pdf available) 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 12 and 19, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

WEEK 6 --Privacy and Access

textbook: Braman, Chapter 5

textbook: Solove, Chapters 3 & 4.

textbook: Solove, Chapters 8-10.

Current Information Policy Small Group Discussion (Presenter 4 & 5)  WEEK 7 --Privacy and National Security Kranich, Nancy. (2003).  “The Impact of the USA PATRIOT Act on Free Expression,” New York: Free Expression Policy Project, May 2003, http://www.fepproject.org/commentaries/patriotact.html; “Update,” August 27, 2003, http://www.fepproject.org/commentaries/patriotactupdate.html 

Solove, Daniel J., "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy.” San Diego Law Review, Vol. 44, #4, Fall 2007: 745-772. (Available through Lexis/Nexis Academic)

Bronk, Christopher. (November 2008). “Webtapping: Securing the Internet to Save Us from Transnational Terror?” First Monday, 13 (11) November 2008.http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2192/2052  WEEK 8 –Universal Service Information Policy Making Agency Small Group Discussion (Presenter 1) 

Bertot, John C. (2003). “The Multiple Dimensions of the Digital Divide: More than the Technology ‘Haves’ and ‘Have Nots.’” Government Information Quarterly, 20 (2): 185-191. (Available from Science Direct)

Lievrouw, Leah A. and Sharon E. Farb. (2003). “Information and Equity,” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 37: 499-540. (Available from Wiley Interscience)

Schement, Jorge Reina. (2001), “Imagining Fairness: Equality and Equity of Access in Search of Democracy.” (Typescript pdf available).

Schement, Jorge Reina. (1995). "Beyond Universal Service: Characteristics of Americans without Telephones, 1980-1993," Telecommunications Policy, 19 (6): 477-485. (Available through Science Direct) Schement, Jorge Reina. (2003).  “Measuring What Jefferson Knew and DeToqueville Saw: Libraries as Bridges Across the Digital Divide,” IT&Society, 1 (4). http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/itandsociety/v01i04.html   

WEEK 9 --Access to Government Information

textbook: Braman, Chapter 6.

textbook: Solove, Chapters 1, 7.

Information Policy Making Agency Small Group Discussion (Presenter 2)

Final paper topics presented and discussed 

Bertot, John C., Jaeger, Paul T., & McClure, Charles R. (2008). “Citizen-Centered E-Government Services: Benefits, Costs, and Research Needs.” The Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: 137-142. Montreal, Canada, May 18-21, 2008. (pdf available)

Feinberg, Lotte E. (2004). “FOIA, Federal Information Policy, and Information Availability in a Post-9/11 World,” Government Information Quarterly, 21, 439-460. (Available through Science Direct)

Relyea, H. C. (2002). “Homeland Security and Information,” Government Information Quarterly, 19, 213-223. (Available through Science Direct)

West, Darrell M. (2008). “State and Federal Electronic Government in the United States, 2008.” Washington: Brookings Institution. http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/0826_egovernment_west.aspx.  (pdf available)  WEEK 10 --Government Secrecy

Abstract of Future Policies Proposal Paper Due

textbook: Braman, Chapter 7.

Information Policy Making Agency Small Group Discussion (Presenter 3) Ericson, Timothy L. (2005). “Building Our Own ‘Iron Curtain’: The Emergence of Secrecy in American Government,” American Archivist, 6 8 (Spring/Summer): 18–52 (pdf copy from web site at: http://archivists.metapress.com/content/9m260j244177p553/) Relyea, Harold. (2003). “Government Secrecy: Policy Depths and Dimensions,” Government Information Quarterly, 20 (4): 395-418. (Available through Science Direct) Aftergood, Steven.  (1999). “Government Secrecy and Knowledge Production: A Survey of Some General Issues,” in Judith Reppy. (1999). Secrecy and Knowledge Production. Cornell University Peace Program, Occasional Papers:17-29 (pdf: 22-36). http://www.einaudi.cornell.edu/peaceprogram/publications/occasional_papers/occasional-paper23.pdf Blanton, Thomas. (2003). “National Security and Open Government in the United States: Beyond the Balancing Test,” in Syracuse University, Maxwell School, Campbell Public Affairs Institute. National Security and Open Government: Striking the Right Balance.  Syracuse, NY: 33-73. (pdf available)   

Klein, B. & Schwalb, S. (2005). “A Delicate Balance: National Security vs. Public Access.” Computers in Libraries, 25(3), 16-23. (Available through Proquest)

WEEK 11 –Intellectual Property / Economics of Information

Information Policy Making Agency Small Group Discussion (Presenter 4 & 5)

Aoki, Keith, James Boyle and Jennifer Jenkins,  (2006). Bound By Law: Tales from the Public Domain. Durham, NC: Duke Center for the Study of the Public Domain. http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/zoomcomic.html

Heins, Marjorie. (2003). “The Progress of Science and Useful Arts”: Why Copyright TodayThreatens Intellectual Freedom. NY: Free Expression Policy Project. http://www.fepproject.org/issues/copyright.html (scroll down and click on for pdf copy) 

National Research Council. (2000). The Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the Information Age. Washington, DC: National Academy Press: Chapter 1, p. 23-60. (E-Text Available through IRIS and Alexander Library Reserve)

Patterson, L. Ray and Stanley W. Lindberg, (1991). The Nature of Copyright: A Law of Users; Rights. Athens, GA: U. of Georgia Press. Chapters 4, 8-11. (Available through Alexander Library Reserve)

Benkler, Yochai. (2006).  “Some Basic Economics of Information Production and Innovation,” in The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom.  (New Haven, CT: Yale U. Press,  (Chapter 2).  http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks/index.php?title=Download_PDFs_of_the_book

WEEK 12 –Information Commons Buchanan, E. and Campbell, J. (2004). “New Threats to Intellectual Freedom: The Loss of the Information Commons through Law and Technology in the United States.” In Intellectual Property Rights in a Networked World: Theory and Practice. Edited by R. Spinello and H. Tavani. Idea Group. (pdf available). 

Kranich, Nancy. (June 2004). The Information Commons: A Public Policy Report. New York: Free Expression Policy Project. www.fepproject.org/policyreports/InformationCommons.pdf; www.fepproject.org/policyreports/infocommons.contentsexsum.html.

Kranich, Nancy and Jorge Reina Schement. (2007). “Information Commons,” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2008.  42: 547-591. (Typescript pdf available)

Ostrom, E. & Hess, C. (2006). “A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons.” In C. Hess & E. Ostrom, Eds, Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 41-81. (Typescript pdf available)

WEEK 13 –Development and Implementation of Information Policies

textbook: Braman, Chapters 8 - 9.

Stone, Chapters 11-15, Conclusion

Benkler, Yochai. (2006). “Conclusion: The Stakes of Information Law and Policy,” in The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom.  (New Haven, CT: Yale U. Press,  (Chapter 12).  http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks/index.php?title=Download_PDFs_of_the_book

Lakoff, George. (2003). “Framing the Dems,” The American Prospect, August 31, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=framing_the_dems

American Library Association.  (2009).  Advocating in a Tough Economy Toolkit.  Chicago: ALA, http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/advocacy/advocacyuniversity/toolkit/index.cfm

Kranich, Nancy. (2004). “ALA and Political Action: Ensuring the Public's Right to Know in the Digital Age. Argus, 33: 17-23. (Typescript pdf available)

Kranich, Nancy. (2004). “Media, Democracy and Libraries: The Growth of Media Activism in the United States,” Feliciter,50, 200-203. (Typescript pdf available)

WEEK 14 -- Future Policy Presentations

Students should post a 1-page summary of their policy brief on eCompanion and then present 3 key talking points before the class.

Future Policy Proposals are Due  WEEK 15 -- ReflectionsProspects for applying what we have learned.