URBDP
598D: Democracy, Citizenship, and Participation in the City
Spring
2005
Mark Purcell
448E Gould Hall
mpurcell@u.washington.edu
Tel. 206-543-8754
Office Hrs: by appointment (e-mail me!)
Class meeting times and location: MW 10:30-12:20, Gould 114
Introduction
This course explores decision-making in the city. More specifically, it examines the decisions that shape the geography of the city. Think of local examples like the redevelopment of South Lake Union, the Waterfront, or the Duwamish River. These projects will profoundly reshape both spatial and social relations in Seattle. How are the decisions being made in these cases? How democratic are they? How democratic should they be? How can they be made more democratically? In general, what role should “the public” play in determining the future of the city?
In examining these kinds of questions, we will proceed in two phases. Phase One will put the question of democratic decision-making in cities into a larger theoretical and historical context. We will learn about current debates in democratic theory in order to explore just what we mean when we say “democracy.” We will also work to better understand the current global political-economic context (globalization) in which urban democracy must develop.
Phase Two will explore emerging trends in urban democracy. These will favor trends in planning, but they will also include trends in urban politics and policy more generally. Here the particular interests and expertise of the class participants will help shape the topics we explore.
Course Goals
This course is a graduate seminar. Its goal is to provide you with the opportunity to step back and think through the question of democracy in cities. To that end, we will read about, discuss, and write about contemporary ideas, debates, and initiatives. The course is not designed to impart applied techniques that you can use to fill your “toolbox” for professional practice. It is designed instead to give you the intellectual tools to make informed and wise judgments about democratic practice. Therefore, the course goals are:
§ Critical literacy in debates and practices surrounding democracy, citizenship, and participation in urban planning, politics, and policy
§ Develop (academic) reading, writing, and discussion skills
The course will feature planning-related content, but not in such a way that non-planners won’t find it relevant. The three disciplines of urban planning, policy, and politics are so closely related as to be mutually necessary to each other.
In thinking about how I am going to evaluate you, you need only to understand clearly what I expect from you in this class. For me the most critical responsibility is to take your own education seriously. This means sincerely engaging and reliably completing each assignment. It means attending each class, prepared and on time. It means impressing me with a sincere intellectual curiosity. Secondary to that, but only by just a little, is the quality of the work you produce.
Professor Responsibilities
My responsibilities mirror yours: to take the class, the material, and your work seriously. This means ensuring a safe and respectful classroom, providing timely feedback, and being present and engaged at each class.
Course
Readings
·
Course reader,
available at Professional Copy and Print, 4200 University Way, 634-2689
Assessment
Your final assessment in this course will be based on your performance on the following:
|
Item |
Percent |
Date due |
|
Participation |
35 |
|
|
Reading Assignments |
30 |
Every class |
|
Final Paper/Project |
35 |
Monday, June 6 |
Academic
honesty
The University takes the offenses of cheating and plagiarism very seriously, and so do I. Cheating is taking advantage of the work of others. Plagiarism is representing the work of others as your own, without giving appropriate credit. If you are unsure what is OK or not OK, make sure to ask!
Class Schedule
WEEK 1 |
||
|
Monday, March 28 Class 1 |
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 30 Class 2 |
Reading:
|
|
WEEK 2 |
||
|
Class 3 |
Assignment Due: Reading Assignment #2 |
|
|
Wednesday, April 6 Class 4 |
Assignment Due: Reading Assignment #3 |
|
|
WEEK 3 |
|
|
Monday, April 11 Class 5 |
Assignment Due: Reading Assignment #4 |
|
Wednesday, April 13 Class 6 |
Assignment Due: |
|
WEEK 4 |
|
|
Monday, April 18 Class 7 |
Assignment Due: Reading Assignment #6 |
|
Wednesday, April 20 Class 8 |
Assignment Due: Reading Assignment #7 |
|
WEEK 5 |
|
|
Monday, April 25 Class 9 |
Assignment Due: Reading Assignment #8 |
|
Wednesday, April 27 Class 10 |
Assignment Due: Reading Assignment #9 |
|
WEEK 6 |
|
|
Monday, May 2 Class 11 |
Assignment Due: Reading Assignment #10 |
|
Wednesday, May 4 Class 12 |
Assignment Due: Reading Assignment #11 |
WEEK 7
|
|
|
Monday,
May 9 Class
13 |
Assignment Due: Reading Assignment #12
|
|
Wednesday,
May 11 Class
14 |
Assignment
Due: Reading
Assignment #13 |
|
WEEK 8 |
|
|
Monday,
May 16 Class
15 |
Assignment
Due: Reading
Assignment #14 |
|
Wednesday,
May 18 Class
16 |
Assignment
Due: Reading
Assignment #15 |
WEEK 9 |
|
|
Monday, May 23 Class 17 |
Assignment Due: Reading Assignment #16 |
|
Wednesday, May 25 Class 18 |
Assignment Due: Reading Assignment #17 |
WEEK 10 |
|
|
Monday, May 30 |
No Class Memorial Day |
|
Wednesday, June 1 Class 19 |
|
|
EXAM WEEK Exam Period is on Monday, June 6,
8:30-10:20 Final Paper is due during this period |
|
Reading Assignments
UDP 598D
Spring 2005
Overview
For
each discussion, you will prepare a reading assignment. This exercise provides you with an
opportunity to develop your critical understanding of the particular
issue. It also helps you process the
ideas in the readings so you will be prepared to discuss them when we
meet. There are two elements to this
assignment:
Understanding: you will state the
author’s main argument in a single sentence.
Maximum 50 words
Reflection: you will write your reaction to the
reading. This can be a critique of the
reading, a deconstruction of it, a new idea that you are excited about, an
application of the ideas to a particular case…there are a range of appropriate
ways to reflect on the reading.
Maximum 200 words
There will be reading assignments for every class in which we discuss a reading. The question assignments are worth 30% of your course grade. Each reading assignment will be graded on a scale of 0 (lowest) to 2 (highest). They should be entirely your own work.
Format
The assignment should be typed, single-spaced, and you should try to fit it onto one page (or at least front and back of one sheet). Make sure your name is on the page.
The assignment for a particular set of readings are due the day we discuss the readings. See the syllabus for specific dates.
If there is more than one reading, do the understanding exercise for all of them, and pick just one for the reflection exercise.
Participation
UDP 598D
Spring 2005
Participation makes up 35% of your course grade. It is important. And there is no way around participating. In a discussion format, each of you has a responsibility to others in the class to share your ideas and insights. The way this happens is by you speaking during class. If you do not share your questions and ideas with everyone, they can’t benefit from what you have to offer. Each of you has important questions and ideas to share that we can all learn from. Therefore, since you all have something important to contribute, you all have a responsibility to contribute it. The intellectual value of this class (and any seminar) depends on the active and engaged participation of its members. Such participation depends on a sincere desire to learn more and learn from others. Hence the quality of the class rests on how well everyone meets their responsibility to participate.
You will be graded on participation class-by-class. Effective participation is not measured by sheer amount. If you make a few thoughtful and genuine contributions to a particular class, you will receive a good evaluation for that class. If you make 15 thoughtful and honest contributions to the class, you will receive a good evaluation for that class. If you consistently share your ideas and questions and concerns in an honest effort to explore the material in the spirit of intellectual curiosity, you will receive a good grade for participation.
So, the strategy for participation is this: do not hesitate to share your thoughts. Do not think that they have to be fully formed and 100% defensible before you offer them. Do not think that they have to be brilliant or dazzling. Do not think that you can’t contribute until you’ve read the book that intimidating guy in the corner referred to obliquely. Do not think you should remain quiet because you have different ideas about a topic than most others in the class (that’s when we need you most). And, most importantly, do not think that you have to know before you speak. Honest questions and true struggles within yourself that you have not yet resolved are the best way to contribute.
Remember also that listening is as important as talking. Asking genuine questions (for which you have not already decided on an answer) is a good way to listen. If you ask a question that you do not already have an answer for, you will genuinely want to hear what your classmates have to say. The worst thing for discussion is a series of unrelated monologues. What we are shooting for are true dialogues in which you engage the comments and questions of others rather than following them up with unrelated comments and questions. Be curious about what others have to say.
I understand that oral participation in class is a struggle for some. I are willing to explore any and all ways to help you participate. If you feel uncomfortable with speaking in class, you should come see or e-mail me so we can think of ways to make it more comfortable. I stand ready to help you find ways to speak, but the responsibility for participating is yours. Again, the structure of the class means there is no way around participation. The quality of learning in the class depends on it, and a large portion of your grade depends on it.
Discussion
Facilitation
UDP 598D
Spring 2005
Summary
The
idea of the discussion leaders is to have a student for every discussion who
serves as facilitator of the discussion.
There will be a discussion facilitator for all of the classes that
involve discussions (which is nearly every class).
The
discussion facilitators will lead the class in an exploration of the important
ideas in the readings. Each facilitator
has quite a bit of freedom in deciding on the format of the class exploration. Whole-group discussion, structured debates,
small-group discussion, jigsaw, role-playing, brainstorming, and fishbowl
format are just some possibilities (for more information, refer to the page on
techniques for planning a discussion, below).
Remember you also have everyone’s reading assignment as a source to draw
on. I encourage you to be creative in
thinking up ways to inspire the class to engage in an energetic exchange of
ideas and opinions.
In
preparing their material, the facilitator should complete the readings in
advance and then formulate the content of discussion and its structure. The content
will be one or more key questions about the readings that will form the
backbone of discussion. The idea is for
the discussion facilitator to inspire everyone to explore the reading in
insightful ways. In preparing the
questions that will guide discussion, remember that the goal of discussion
questions is to stimulate discussion.
Therefore, good discussion questions are “open-ended.” They have a
complex answer and/or a range of possible answers. They are usually not “closed-ended,” meaning that there is a
particular, discrete answer. Good
discussion questions are also genuine. That means you have not already made up your
mind what the answer is. For example if
you ask, “Is the U.S. right to attack Iraq without U.N. backing?” and you
really have not made up your mind if the U.S. is right or not, your question is
genuine. You are really asking.
If, on the other hand, you ask, “Bush can’t really believe it is right to attack Iraq without U.N. support, can
he?” you have made up your mind that it is wrong to attack. You are really telling, not asking. For
the purposes of these discussion questions, try to ask, don’t tell.
Good,
genuine questions can be descriptive. These ask about what actually is happening in the reading or in the
world. Examples: “Does the author mean
to say…?” or “Do you think power or money is more important to Saddam?” Good, genuine questions can also be normative. Normative questions ask what should
be going on in the readings or in the world. For example, the genuine question above about whether the U.S. is
right to attack is normative. Normative
questions open up the issue of values, of what people think the world should be like. You can use either descriptive or normative
questions in leading discussion.
The structure
of discussion will be up to you. Refer
to the page on discussion techniques for some possible ideas to get you
started.
I
also encourage facilitators to consult with me in developing your plan.
The Rest of You
The existence of the discussion facilitators is in no way an opportunity for the rest of the class to take it easy. The discussion facilitators will guide the discussion, but they should by no means do most of the talking. Their role is to stimulate you to engage in an insightful discussion. Thus the rest of the class should digest the readings as usual and come prepared to participate fully along the lines laid out by the lead group.
These
are just some basic structures. You
should feel absolutely free to innovate as you like. Some assume more than one leader and so may need some tweaking to
be effective with a single leader.
Whole group—everyone engages in
discussion together at one time. This
is good because you can get a greater range of ideas and opinions with a larger
group. Large groups are sometimes
tricky to manage well though, so having a good set of stimulating questions is
important so you can shape the discussion to move in insightful directions that
you have thought out beforehand.
Large-group can also be a more intimidating setting in which to speak.
Small-group discussion—the class is broken up into
small groups to discuss. They can have
the same topic to discuss, or they can have different topics. In jigsaw,
the groups each discuss different aspects of a larger topic, and then they
rejoin into a whole group to see how each group’s issues/conclusions fit
together.
Inverse pyramid (invented by students
leaders in Geography 301, Fall 2002)—a version of jigsaw where the class starts
out in eight small groups and each uses their discussion questions to come up
with what they think is the most thought-provoking question. The groups then pair off, and the groups in
each pair exchange their question with each other. Each group then discusses alone the new question they have been
given. Then, the paired groups come
together to discuss their responses to the two questions. These paired groups then formulate one
question they want to ask the whole class.
Then the class comes back together to explore the joint questions of
each paired group.
Rotate (invented by student
leaders in Geography 301, Spring 2001)—each leader develops questions on a
particular sub-topic of the day’s topic. The class is divided up into small
groups so that there are the same number of small groups as there are
discussion leaders. Then, the leaders
move in shifts from group to group so that each leader has a chance to lead
each group. That way, each group gets a
chance to discuss each aspect of the day’s topic. At the end, you can bring the group back into whole-group to
share insights.
Four-square—the leaders set aside four
corners labeled “agree,” “tend to agree,” “tend to disagree,” and
“disagree.” They then make a statement,
for example: “nationalism is a good thing.”
Then each person in the class goes to the corner they decide best
describes their reaction to the statement.
The group in each corner discusses for a while why they
agree/disagree/etc. with the statement.
The class then goes back into large group to engage in debate over the
issue. At the end, the leaders ask if
anyone would like to change corners.
Those that do are asked to share why their position changed during the
debate.
Brainstorming—the leaders ask the class
to come up with ideas about a given topic (say, “reasons why you oppose the war
in Iraq” and “reasons why you support the war in Iraq”). The product of that brainstorming (usually
written on the board) can then serve as the basis for discussion, or it can be
a way to sum up a discussion.
Fishbowl—here one small-group
engages in discussion and the rest of the class observes their discussion. Different small-groups can rotate into the
fishbowl—they can discuss different topics or the same topic.
Role-playing—is a general technique that
can be applied to any of the above methods.
A person or group is given a role to play (rather than playing
themselves), which gives them a certain point of view to argue from. This is particularly helpful when there is
an issue you think most people (when playing themselves) will agree on; you can
have people play roles that are in opposition to the common opinion.
Skits—a kind of role playing
where actors play out a skit you write beforehand. The idea is to act out an idea/debate/issue from the readings,
and then have the class discuss their reactions to the skit.
Each
of these can be used in combination, or alone.
Don’t be afraid to invent new techniques as well. In the past, when leaders have tried new
things, it has been successful and has helped keep discussion fresh.
Again,
you are welcome and encouraged to consult with me in planning your leadership
session.
Final
Paper/Project
UDP 598D
Spring 2005
The idea of the final paper is to bring your own work into sustained and productive engagement with the ideas of the course. The goal of the project is not to develop your research skills, so you are encouraged not to do original research for this paper. Rather, you should use your existing research projects as the subject matter that you bring into dialogue with the course ideas. This framework is deliberately vague, because there are many ways this exercise can be carried out. It depends greatly on your topic and how you choose to engage the course ideas. So, the way this works best is an iterative process where you come up with an idea, I give you feedback, you come up with a refined idea, I give you more feedback, etc. On each step, below, I encourage you to go through this iterative process with me (and with your peers).
Step 1: select a topic (feedback, refinement, feedback, etc.)
Step 2: formulate a thesis (feedback, refinement, feedback, etc.)
Step 3: lay out a work plan (feedback, refinement, feedback, etc.)
Step 4: come up with an outline (feedback, refinement, feedback, etc.)
Step 5: write it up (evaluation)
The paper should have at least 15 pages of text. Ideally, you should think about this project as a potential working paper, conference paper, journal article, or other career-relevant product. The length of these products varies by format and discipline, so let your vision for what the paper will become guide you as to length (with the minimum of 15 pages as a baseline).