Version 30 September 2009
The audience for your paper is computer scientists and software developers. In other words, your audience is the same one as for the Communications of the ACM, especially the Viewpoints articles.
You will develop your position paper over the course of the term, and will hand it in in three versions, several weeks apart. Each handin will be softcopy, via a Catalyst CollectIt dropbox. You will also bring in one hardcopy for each member in your review group on the day version 2 is due.
In this version, you should identify a topic that involves computerization, and a problem associated with this topic on which you will focus. A topic is a general area of inquiry, such as "intellectual property", "pornography", or "privacy". A problem refers to such things as unmet needs, negative consequences, instances of injustice, or inconsistencies. One problem associated with each of the prior topics listed would be "loss of revenue by the content generation industry due to peer-to-peer downloading", "children accessing pornography on the Internet", and "computer surveillance via malware on personal computers", respectively. Note that each of the listed topics might be associated with a mulititude of problems. For this version, make sure to clearly identify your topic and the problem that will be the focus of your paper. Why is this a problem? For whom? What are the value conflicts involved? And crucially, how is this related to computerization? In what ways are values currently implicated or embedded in the technology and the existing policy? Defer making policy proposals to solve this problem for versions 2 and 3.
This version should not be less than 1000 words. Do not use bulleted and numbered lists. Ensure that the topic relates to some aspect of computers and society. You need to reference at least two bibliographic sources that you have read on this topic in your paper. In this and subsequent versions of your paper, you are free to use sources from the class readings, but these will not count toward the required number of sources. Be prepared to discuss your paper in class on the due date.
Please use "doc" format (not docx, pdf, txt, or any other format). Make sure to name your file yourname-v1.doc - this way I can easily identify your paper from its file name.
The second version will be a position paper in which you identify and defend a public policy that addresses a policy vacuum associated with the technology that you are investigating. Your paper should be not less than 2000 words in length.
By policy, I mean rule-like statements that specify what groups of people may, must, or must not do in specific circumstances1. I distinguish a public policy from a private one in that a public policy is one that "requires deliberation among a group of people to determine which policy is the best response to a particular problem facing the group2."
The body of this version will be an argument. Phillips (referenced in the footnotes, pp394-395) identifies key questions that the argument should answer.
Would this policy be likely to solve the policy problem that it is directed at? Is it just? What are the likely social and political and economic consequences, and are these morally permissible? How are the unintended consequences of this policy to be weighted against any putative benefits? How does this proposed policy compare with rival policies that can be formulated to solve the original problem?--for rival policies always are possible. Specifically, what gives the favored hypothesis [policy] its advantage over the opposition, and is this well-warranted? Somewhere, even at the early stage of policy formation, a complex argument must be lurking that addresses these matters.
In your bibliography, you should make reference to at least six separate references that are at least 60 pages total in length. A minimum of one half of the references and the page count must be from peer-reviewed (scholarly) journal articles. Make sure to include page counts for each reference (including electronic references). In addition, you should appropriately reference at least two of the readings from this course in your paper.
Substantiate each factual claim in your paper through a specific reference to one of your bibliographic sources or don't make the claim. Often, it is best to narrow the claim or to use "hedge" words (e.g. from "all of us think that ..." to "a majority of respondents to a Harris poll indicated that ...").
Bring one hardcopy of your paper to class on the due date for each other person in your review group. Your paper will be graded on a "no pass", "low pass", or "high pass" basis (equivalent to 0, 2, and 4). And please submit softcopy via CollectIt. Make sure to name your file yourname-v2.doc - this way I can easily identify your paper from its file name.
Based on feedback that you receive from students and the professor on version 2 and additional research that you do, you will rewrite your position paper. This version should be a minimum of 2250 words. In addition to adding at least 250 words, another requirement is that you ground your argument in your conception of the right and/or the good, relating it to the ethical theories that we examined in this course. In your bibliography, you should make reference to at least five peer-reviewed, scholarly journal articles that are at least 50 pages total in length. If your version 2 already satisfies this condition then you need not (but are welcome to) add additional readings. If their combined page count is less, then include as many peer-reviewed, scholarly journal articles as you need to make a minimum of 50 pages. Make sure to include page counts for each reference (including electronic references). In addition, you should appropriately reference at least three of the readings from this course in your paper if you did not already do so for version 2.
On the due date, please submit your paper softcopy via CollectIt. Make sure to name your file yourname-v3.doc.