Citizens, Politicians and the Media:
Evaluating Democratic Processes
SF2222; Spring 2011; 15 högskolepoäng/15 Higher education credits
University of Gothenburg
Bengt Johansson, Department of Journalism, Media and Communication
031-786 4984; bengt.johansson@jmg.gu.se
Elin Naurin, Department of Political Science
031-786 1243; elin.naurin@pol.gu.se
Administrator: Christina Petterson,
031-786 11 93; Christina.Petterson@gu.se
Course website: https://gul.gu.se/courseId/37640/content.do?id=15032712
General information (version 2011-03-07)
The schedule and all other information is available from the course web site (GUL SF2222). Any
changes, additions, or other messages will be posted there, as well as e-mailed to participants’
GU-addresses. In other words, please check your GU-addresses and the web site regularly during
the course.
Substance
A major goal of democracy is to realize “the will of the people.” But how should this be
achieved? How is it achieved in reality? To find out, this course zooms in on three groups of
actors: citizens, politicians, and the mass media. We consider research on voting behaviour,
political psychology, political participation, and political representation, the impact of the mass
media, political journalism and news management. What does this research tell us about these
actors and how they interact under different circumstances? How do these actors, and the
relations between them, live up to requirements imposed by different models of democracy?
What do research results reveal about how various democratic values can be realized?
Specific aims
Specifically, the course has three aims:
1. To develop your knowledge of, and ability to critically evaluate, research on voting
behaviour, public opinion, political psychology, political participation, political
representation, the impact of the mass media, political journalism and news management.
2. To develop your ability to analyze democratic issues in the light of empirical research. To
what extent does current democratic processes live up to the ideals and assumptions of
normative models of democracy. And how could democracy be improved: which
1
democratic reforms seem promising given that we want to realize certain democratic
models and values?
3. To develop the participants’ academic writing and oral presentation skills.
The course is shaped by the lecturers as well as by students themselves. About two-thirds of the
teaching hours are traditional one-way lectures. About one-third is spent on seminars where
participants and lecturers discuss issues raised in the literature. The idea is to supplement the
worldview of the lecturers with the knowledge and creativity of the participants. This should
stimulate questions and answers that would otherwise not have seen the light of day.
As explained in more detail below, grading is based on:
(1) a written exam halfway into the course,
(2) an oral presentation where students work together in groups of two or three (“the Day of Creativity”),
(3) a shorter oral seminar presentation during the second half of the course, the contents of which is
also reported in a short memo (1-3 pages),
(4) a written review essay of roughly 3,000-5,000 words, presented and defended in an oral
presentation.
(5) active participation in the final “breakfast reflection”.
Organization
The theoretical and empirical content of the course are described in detail below where the
lectures are outlined. The pedagogical idea of the course can be summarized in five headlines:
Introduction and welcome – getting to know the subject and each other
The course kicks off with an introduction and description of the aim of the course. Emphasis is
put on defining the general goals of the course, as well as on presenting the participating
students. The students will meet several different lecturers during the ten weeks of the course. To
make the most of these contacts, it is important that the group quickly gets into a talkative and
open atmosphere. Internationally competitive university courses put great emphasis on personal
contacts both between students and between students and lecturers. It is our aim to create an
environment where students feel relaxed and inspired and where they help each other in their
studies.
Study hard – learning how others think
The introduction is followed by a series of lectures describing theories and results generated by a
number of related research fields. The aim of this part of the course is that the students will get a
good overview of what research has shown so far. This knowledge will be tested with the help of
a written exam about halfway through the course. The exam will be based on the lectures and
literature covered to this point. The students are encouraged to systematically create their own
summaries of each lecture and corresponding literature when studying. Such summaries are
sometimes called portfolios and become a concrete result of the course for the students to bring
with them. The students are also encouraged to study together, discussing interpretations of the
literature. The exam covers the general findings and arguments, not details. It is examined as pass
(G), well pass (VG) or not pass (U).
Creativity – thinking outside the box
The hard work studying others ideas needs to be combined with encouragements to think
independently. During the preparation for the written exam, a one day exercise on creativity is
2
therefore built-in. The day is described in the document “Instructions for the Day of Creativity”.
It is examined as pass (G) or not pass (U) via a short oral group presentation and active
participation in the seminars.
Writing and presenting- creating something of your own
After the exam, it’s time to choose an individual book package (see below). This package,
together with other relevant course literature, forms the basis of a review essay and a
corresponding oral presentation by the end of the course. Instructions are found by the end of
this document.
The job with the review essay means that you will spend many hours working on your own. Too
much reading and writing in solitude is boring and counterproductive. So parallel to the work on
the review essay, there are lectures that present research on specific or current topics. Students
are expected to prepare one question each to the lectures where articles are mentioned as
recommended readings (see description below).
Two discussion seminars are arranged to help in the process of writing the review essay. During
these seminars each student contributes with one oral presentation based on a topic related to the
review essay. A short PM lining up the important points of the presentation is turned in to the
teacher. The students choose what topic they wish to talk about, and also which of the two
seminar days they wish to do their presentation. They participate in both seminars with
comments and questions to their fellow student colleagues.
Reflection – what have I learned? What more do I want to learn?
Self evaluation is a pedagogical tool that is used to promote reflection among both students and
lecturers. This course ends with a “breakfast reflection” where students and the responsible
lecturers together define what the students have learned during the course. Before the meeting,
the students look back at the course, read their portfolios & the review essay and summarize in
three points what they have learned, and in three other points what more they want to learn. The
lecturers do the same. Everyone is free to bring their own breakfast. Active participation in the
discussion means you pass this part of the course.
3
Lectures and literature
We now turn to short descriptions of the substantive lectures together with their respective
reading lists.
The literature consists of the three text books listed below (available from the book store),
together with a large number of articles from scientific journals and books. The latter can be
accessed by GU students via the library’s electronic resources, unless otherwise stated. In some
cases, paper handouts are provided, or files uploaded by lecturers.

Weale, Albert. 2007. Democracy. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Dalton, Russell J. 2008, fifth edition. Citizen Politics. Public Opinion and Political Parties in
Advanced Industrial Democracies. Washington DC: CQ Press.

Stanyer, James. 2007. Modern Political Communication. Mediated Politics in Uncertain Times.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
4
INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME
Monday 28 March 8.15-10.00 B110
Elin Naurin & Bengt Johansson
Abstract: This first meeting includes practical information and serves as a more formal
introduction of the course. We also aim to get to know each other a bit more.
__________________________________________________________________________
Lecture 1. DEMOCRATIC THEORY AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Monday 28 March 10:15—12:00 B110
Elin Naurin
Abstract: This lecture introduces models of democracy that can be used for analyzing empirical
research on citizens, politicians and the media”? How can an analysis of the democratic relevance
of empirical research on this subject be organized? And by the way, what do we mean by
“Democracy”? What values should ideally be realized in a well-functioning democracy?


Berelson, Bernard. 1952. "Democratic Theory and Public Opinion." Public Opinion Quarterly 16:313-330.
Weale, Albert. 2007. Democracy. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
__________________________________________________________________________
Lecture 2. THE QUALITY OF PUBLIC OPINION
Tuesday 29 March 10:15—12:00 B110
Peter Esaiasson
Abstract: What do citizens know about politics? To what extent and under which circumstances
does “the will of the people” exist at all? Are there ways in which uninformed citizens can still
make informed choices? Would highly and equally informed electorates hold different policy and
party preferences?






Dalton. Citizen Politics. Chapters 1 and 2.
Converse, Philip E. “The nature of belief systems in mass publics.” 1964. Reprinted in Critical Review 2006, Vol
18:1- 74.
Luskin, Robert C. 2002. "From Denial to Extenuation (and Finally Beyond): Political Sophistication and Citizen
Performance." Pp. 217-252 in Thinking About Political Psychology, edited by James H. Kuklinski. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (Available via GUNDA’s “e-books”.)
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. "Shortcuts versus Encyklopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance
Reform Elections." American Political Science Review 88:63-76.
Lodge, Milton, Marco R Steenbergen, and Shawn Brau. 1995. "The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and
the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation." American Political Science Review 89:309-326.
Oscarsson, Henrik. 2007. "A Matter of Fact? Knowledge Effects on the Vote in Swedish General Elections,
1985–2002 " Scandinavian Political Studies 30:301-22.
__________________________________________________________________________
Lecture 3 MEDIA, DEMOCRACY AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE
Tuesday 29 March 14:15—16:00 B110
Bengt Johansson
5
Abstract: What role should the media play in a democracy? Should the media only supply voters
with information or should perhaps the media also engage the electorate? And what is “quality”
when it comes to journalism and its relation to democracy? Since there are a number of
definitions of democracy, this lecture focuses on the way quality of news and media content can
be related to different models of democracy.





Stanyer Chapters 4 and 5, Introduction and Conclusion
Marx Ferree, Myra; Gamson, William A, Gerhards, Jurgen & Rucht, Dieter. 2002 “Four models of the public
sphere in modern democracies. Theory and Society 31:289-234
Asp, Kent. (2007) “Fairness, informativeness, and scrutiny. The role of news media in democracy”. Nordicom review
vol 28:31-50 .
Zaller, John (2003) “A new standard of news quality : Burglar alarms for the monitorial citizen”. Political
Communication 20:2 109-130
Strömbäck, Jesper. (2005) “In Search of a Standard: four models of democracy and their normative implications
for journalism”. Journalism Studies, Volume 6, Number 3, 2005, pp. 331!345
__________________________________________________________________________
Lecture 4 AN INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH ON PARTY CHOICE
Thursday 31 March 10:15—12:00 B225
Henrik Oscarsson
Abstract: This lecture will introduce three classic traditions in research on voting behaviour and
party choice: the sociological model, the social psychological model and the economic-rational
model. The history and central concepts of these research traditions will be discussed as well as
how these models of voting behaviour relates to different democratic ideals and models of
democracy.




Dalton. Citizen Politics. Chapters 7-10.
Stokes, Donald E. 1963. "Spatial Models of Party Competition." American Political Science Review 57:368-377.
Carmines, Edward G, and James A. Stimson. 1980. "The Two Faces of Issue Voting." American Political Science Review
74:78-91.
Green, Jane 2007. "When Voters and Parties Agree: Valence Issues and Party Competition " Political Studies 55:629-655.
__________________________________________________________________________
Lecture 5 RETROSPECTIVE VOTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Thursday 31 March 13:15—15:00 B225
Henrik Oscarsson
Abstract: Is retrospective electoral accountability a feasible alternative for maintaining the
electoral connection in democratic political systems? And is deciding whether to support the
government or not based on its performance during the past incumbency period an easy option
for citizens? Different institutional and contextual factors that facilitate or hamper retrospective
electoral accountability will be discussed in this lecture.




Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Martin Paldam. 2000. "Economic Voting: An introduction." Electoral Studies 19:113121.
Anderson, Christopher J. 2007. "The End of Economic Voting? Contingency Dilemmas and the Limits of
Democratic Accountability." Annual Review of Political Science 10:271-96.
Powell, G. Bingham, and Guy D. Whitten. 1993. "A Cross-national Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking
Account of the Political Context." American Journal of Political Science 87:391-414.
Taylor, Michaell A. 2000. "Channeling Frustrations: Institutions, Economic Fluctuations, and Political Behavior."
European Journal of Political Research 38:95-134.
6




Sanders, David 2000. "The real economy and the perceived economy in popularity functions: how much do voters
need to know?: A study of British data, 1974–97." Electoral Studies 19:275-294.
Kumlin, Staffan. 2009. “Informed Electoral Accountability and the Welfare State: Experimental and Real-World
Evidence” (available at www.pol.gu.se/personal/staffankumlin)
Butt, Sarah. 2006. "How Voters Evaluate Economic Competence: A Comparison between Parties In and Out of
Power " Political Studies 54:743-766.
Carlsen, Fredrik. 2000. “Unemployment, inflation and government popularity – are there partisan effects?”
Electoral Studies 19:141-150.
Lecture 6. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
Friday 1 April 10:15--12:00 B225
Peter Esaiasson
Abstract: This lecture takes a closer look at the causes and motivations underlying different types
of political participation. This includes large-scale collective activities such as electoral
participation, party activities, as well as more individual modes of exercising influence. The key
question is why some people participate in political processes whereas others don’t. Should we,
and can we, avoid a concentration of political influence to an educated, materially privileged, and
perhaps ethnically homogenous middle class





Dalton. Citizen Politics. Chapters 3 and 4.
Stanyer Chapters 6 and 7
Lijphart, Arend. 1997. "Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma." American Political Science Review 91:114.
Blais, André 2006. "What Affects Voter Turnout?" Annual Review of Political Science 9:111–125.
Adman, Per 2008. "Does Workplace Experience Enhance Political Participation? A Critical Test of a Venerable
Hypothesis." Political Behavior. 30:1.
Lecture 7. CITIZENSHIP AND MEDIATED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Friday 1 April 13:15-15:00 B225
GUEST: Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, University of Cardiff
DAY OF CREATIVITY:
Monday 4 April 8-16 B228 and Department of Journalism, Media and Mass Communication
Elin Naurin, Patrik Öhberg & Bengt Johansson
See the document “Instructions for the Day of Creativity”. The hard work studying others ideas
needs to be combined with encouragements to think independently. During the preparation for
the written exam, a one day exercise on creativity is therefore built-in. The students are divided
into groups of two or three and spend the day designing a creative research proposal. The day is
ended with a short oral presentation commented on by the rest of the group and the teacher.
8-9
9-10
10-10.30
10.30-12
12-14
14-16
Lecture in B228
Now you know the talk – but can you do the walk…?
Fika at the Department of Journalism, Media and Mass Communication
Ideas tested on the rest of the group.
Preparations
Presentations in B228
7
OPTIONAL: CHALLENGES OF DEMOCRACY
Thursday 7 April 14-17 CG-salen Handelshögskolan (byggnad F vån 4)
For Swedish speaking participants:
SYMPOSIUM: DEMOKRATINS UTMANINGAR
Frågor om demokrati har under senare tid ställts på sin spets: Internationellt har händelserna i
Nordafrika visat på betydelsen av sociala medier och folkliga protester för omvandlingar av
oönskade politiska system. Nationellt har brister i valsystemet lett till att nyval ska hållas i Örebro
och Västra Götaland. Med Sverigedemokraternas inträde i riksdagen har vi fått ett nytt politiskt
landskap. Var med och diskutera var forskning om opinion och demokrati befinner sig vid
Göteborgs universitet och hur den bör utvecklas i framtiden. Alla är varmt välkomna!
Anmäl dig senast 1 april till emma.andersson@pol.gu.se
Participants: Lena Wängnerud, Peter Esaiasson, Abby Peterson, Anders Biel, Bengt Johansson,
Göran Rosenberg, Helena Lindholm Schultz, Christian Munthe.
__________________________________________________________________________
Lecture 8. MEDIATIZATION –THE IMPACT OF MASSMEDIA ON POLITICS
Friday 8 April 10:15—12:00 B225
Bengt Johansson
Abstract: The concept of mediatization is one of the most used in contemporary research on
media impact on politics. But what is mediatization? What are the origins of the concept,
definitions and critique? Is there research showing any proof of a growing mediatization of
politics?



Hjarvard, Stig (2008): The Mediatization of Society. Nordicom-reveiew.
Meyer, Christoph O. (2009): Does European Union politics become mediatized? The case of the European
Commission. Journal of European Public Policy 16:7 October 2009: 1047–1064
Strömbäck, Jesper (2008). Four Phases of Mediatization. An Analysis of the Mediatization of Politics. International
Journal of Press/Politics, vol. 13(3), pp. 228-246.
__________________________________________________________________________
Lecture 9 POLITICAL REPRESENTATION
Wednesday 13 April 10:15—12:00 B228
Elin Naurin
Abstract:
This lecture focuses on the concept of representation. We start with Hanna Pitkin's classical
definition which puts "acting in the interest of the people" to the foreground of analysis. During
the second hour we discuss what representation means in the context of contemporary European
multi-party systems. The responsible party model is introduced.
8








Dalton. Citizen Politics. Chapter 11.
Weale: Democrcy Chapter 6
Powell, G. Bingham 2004. "Political Representation in Comparative Politics." Annual Review of Political Science 7:273–96.
Holmberg, Sören. 1989. "Political Representation in Sweden." Scandinavian Political Studies 12:1–36.
Huber, John D., and G. Bingham Powell. 1994. "Congruence between Citizens and Policymakers in Two Visions of
Liberal Democracy." World Politics 46:291-326.
Blais, André, and Marc André Bodet 2006. "Does Proportional Representation Foster Closer Congruence Between
Citizens and Policy Makers? ." Comparative Political Studies 39:1243-1262.
Royed, Terry. 1996. "Testing the Mandate Model in Britain and the United States: Evidence from the Reagan and
Thatcher Eras." British Journal of Political Science 26.
Mansergh, Lucy & Robert Thomson (2007); “Election Pledges, Party Competition, and Policymaking”, Comparative
Politics, Volume 39, Number 3, April 2007.
__________________________________________________________________________
Lecture 10 WOMEN IN PARLIAMENTS: DESCRIPTIVE AND SUBSTANTIVE
REPRESENTATION
Thursday 14 April 8:15—10:00 B110
Lena Wängnerud
Abstract: This lecture focuses on variations in the number of women elected to national
parliaments in the world (descriptive representation), and on effects of women's presence in
parliaments (substantive representation). The theory of the politics of presence (Phillips 1995) is
introduced, which provides reasons for expecting a link between descriptive and substantive
representation. We discuss an alternative approach which emphasizes the importance of "feminist
awareness" among parliamentarians instead of sex/gender in its pure or basic sense. The issue of
other social background characteristics, beside gender, is also raised.



Wängnerud, Lena (2009) Women in Parliaments: Descriptive and Substantive Representation. Annual Review of Political
Science 12:51-59.
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A, and Mishler, William. 2005. "An Integrated Model of Women's Representation." Journal of
Politics, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 407-428.
Stanyer Chapter 3
Lecture 11 NEWS MANAGEMENT AND POLITICAL MARKETING
Friday 15 April 10:15—12:00 B225
Bengt Johansson
Abstract: This lecture focuses on the strategies of political parties during election campaigns. We
will start outlining the historical trends of campaigning and end up with the present situation
were campaigns tend to become more and more professionalized. In present research there is a
debate about how professionalization of campaigning should be understood and its relation to
concepts like “Americanization” and “Globalization”.




Stanyer Chapters 1 and 2
Peterson et al 2007 “The parties’ campaign in Peterson et al Media and elections in Sweden
http://www.sns.se/document/dr_2006_english_web.pdf
Strömbäck, Jesper “Political Marketing and Professionalized Campaigning: A Conceptual Analysis, in Journal of Political Marketing
Vol. 6(2/3) 2007
Lees-Marshment, Jennifer (2001) “The marriage of politics and marketing”. Political Studies. Vol 49: 692-713
__________________________________________________________________________
Lecture 12 DOES PUBLIC OPINION AFFECT PUBLIC POLICY?
Monday 18 April 10:15—12:00 B228
Elin Naurin
9
Abstract: This lecture focuses on empirical research that study effects of public opinion on
public policy. Issues raised are under what circumstances and in which type of issues public
opinion might have an effect. The relationship between public opinion, parliament and public
policy is highlighted.





Wlezien, Christopher, and Stuart N. Soroka. 2007. "The Relationship between Public Opinion and Policy." Pp. 799-817
in The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, edited by Russel J Dalton and Hans-Dieter Klingemann. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 8 (To be distributed by Elin Naurin.)
Burstein, Paul. 2003. "The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda." Political Research
Quarterly 56 29-40.
Brettschneider, Frank. 1996. "Public Opinion and Parliamentary Action: Responsiveness of the German Bundestag in
Comparative Perspective." International Journal of Public Opinion Research 8:292-311.
Holmberg, Sören. 1997. "Dynamic Opinion Representation." Scandinavian Political Studies 20:265-283.
Schmitt, Hermann, and Jacques Thomassen. 2000. "Dynamic Representation: The Case of European Integration."
European Union Politics 1:318-339.
__________________________________________________________________________
Lecture 13. DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATION UNDER PRESSURE: THE AFRICAN
CONTEXT
Tuesday 19 April 10:15—12:00 B009
Staffan I. Lindberg
Abstract: This lecture takes the theoretical concept of democratic representation to the African
context. We focus on empirical research studying the relationship between representatives and
voters in systems under pressure of corruption, poverty and lack of individual rights. We talk
about the challenges that the African context offer to the traditional models of representation,
such as the Responsible Party Model: In what way do we need to develop our models of
representation in order to understand African democracies? What is the role of democratic
elections in these countries? How is public opinion shaped? What is a democratic mandate?




Bratton, Michael. 2007. “Formal versus Informal Institutions in Africa.” Journal of Democracy 18(3): 96-110.
Dunning, Thad and Lauren Harrison. 2010. “Cross-Cutting Cleavages and Ethnic Voting: An Experimental Study of
Cousinage in Mali.” American Political Science Review 104(1): 21/39.
Ekeh, Peter P. 1975. “Colonialism and the Two Publics in Africa: A theoretical Statement.” Comparative Studies in Society
and History 17(1):91-112.
Lindberg, Staffan I. 2010. “ Accountability Pressures Do MPs in Africa Face and How Do They Respond? Evidence
from Ghana” Journal of Modern African Studies 48(1): 117-142.
For the interested, as added reading (not compulsory):







Bratton, Michael and Nicolas van de Walle. 1994. “Neopatrimonial Regimes and Political Transitions in Africa.” World
Politics 46(4): 453-489.
Erdman, Gero. 2007. “The Cleavage Model, Ethnicity and Voter Alignment in Africa: Conceptual and Methodological
Problems Revisited.” GIGA Working Papers. No. 63.
Lindberg, Staffan I. and Minion K. C. Morrison. 2008. “Are African Voters Really Ethnic or Clientelistic?: Survey
Evidence from Ghana.” Political Science Quarterly 123(1): 95-122.
Lindberg, Staffan I. and Keith R. Weghorst. 2010. “Are Swing Voters Instruments of Democracy or Farmers of
Clientelism? Evidence from Ghana”. Working Paper 2010:17 University of Gothenburg: Quality of Government
Institute.
Lindberg, Staffan I. 2003. “It’s Our Time to ‘Chop’: Do Elections in Africa Feed Neopatrimonialism rather than
Counter-Act It?” Democratization 14(2): 121-140.
Posner, Daniel N. and David J. Simon. 2002. “Economic Conditions and Incumbent Support in Africa’s New
Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 35 (3): 313-336.
Wantchekon, Leonard. 2003. “Clientelism and Voting Behavior: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Benin.” World
Politics 55:399-422.
10
__________________________________________________________________________
Lecture 14. SELF-INTEREST, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC DELIBERATION
Wednesday 28 April 10:15—12:00 A110
Peter Esaiasson
Abstract: To what extent is public opinion guided by self-interested considerations? The typical
answer from opinion research is that self-interest plays a surprisingly limited role in opinion
formation. In this lecture we will discuss factors that moderate the importance of self-interest,
and we will also introduce the rival perspectives of social justice research and research on public
deliberation.




Sears, David O., Richard R. Lau, Tom R. Tyler, and Harris M. Jr. Allen. 1980. "Self-interest vs. Symbolic Politics in
Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting." American Political Science Review 74:670-684.
Sears, David O., and Carolyn L. Funk. 1990. "The Limited Effect of Economic Self-Interest on the Political Attitudes
of the Mass Public." Journal of Behavioral Economics 19:247-271. (Only in ugly html format. You may want to copy the
paper version in the library.)
Delli Carpini, Micheal X., Fay Lomax. Cook, and and Lawrence R. Jacobs. 2004. "Public Deliberation, Discursive
Participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature." Annual Review of Political Science 7:315-44.
Luskin, Robert P., James S. Fishkin, and Roger Jowell. 2002. "Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain."
British Journal of Political Science 32:455-487.
__________________________________________________________________________
Lecture 15. MODERNIZATION AND CONTEXT: COMING TO GRIPS WITH
ELECTORAL CHANGE
Thursday 28 April 13:15—15:00 A110
Henrik Oscarsson
Abstract: Soon, universal suffrage will have existed for 100 years in some democratic countries.
During this period a process of societal modernization has occurred. What is the impact on
electoral behaviour of for example the economic development, the process of secularization, the
increased impact of mass media, the rise in educational level and the higher social and
geographical mobility that have taken place in many advanced industrialized democracies? To
what extent have modernization processes resulted in an individualized society and to what
extent are old values and conflicts still relevant for understanding electoral behaviour?
Abstract:



Dalton. Citizen Politics. Chapters 5-10, and 12.
Thomassen, Jacques. 2005. "Modernization or Politics?" Pp. 254-266 in The European Voter: A Comparative Study of
Modern Democracies, edited by Jacques Thomassen. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (To be distributed by Henrik
Oscarsson.)
Green-Pedersen, Christopher. 2007. "The Growing Importance of Issue Competition: The Changing Nature of Party
Competition in Western Europe." Political Studies 55:607-628.
WRITTEN EXAM
Tuesday 3 May 14.30-18.30
11
WORK WITH REVIEW ESSAY STARTS
Wednesday 4 May
Students start working with their review essay. Book packages are chosen before this date on
GUL. Books are picked up at the lecturers’ rooms.
Lecture 16. MEDIA CAMPAIGNS – NEW CHALLENGES
Thursday 5 May 10:15—12:00 D206
Bengt Johansson
Abstact: Political marketing is a growing field in political communication. A number of scholars
have pointed out the growing tendency to use PR-consultants, polls and other strategic campaign
tactics during elections campaigns. In the light of a changing media environment new channels of
communication (Internet and mobile phones) have been added to old forms of campaign
communication. This lecture focus on how these new technologies might change campaign
cultures and also points out trends in election campaigns.



Patrick A. Stewart and James N. Schubert: Taking the "Low Road" with Subliminal Advertisements. A Study Testing
the Effect of Precognitive Prime "RATS in a 2000 Presidential Advertisement”. The International Journal of Press/Politics
2006; 11; 103
James N. Druckman; Martin J. Kifer; Michael Parkin Timeless Strategy Meets New Medium: Going Negative on
Congressional Campaign Web Sites, 2002–2006, Political Communication 2010:4 Pages 88 – 103
Lauren Feldman; Dannagal Goldthwaite Young
Late-Night Comedy as a Gateway to Traditional News: An Analysis of Time Trends in News Attention Among LateNight Comedy Viewers During the 2004 Presidential Primaries 2008:4 Pages 401 – 422
Students are expected to prepare one question each for the lecturer based on the articles above.
Seminar 1
Monday 9 May 10:15-12:00 B225
Bengt Johansson
Discussion seminar to help in the process of writing the review essay. During this or the next
seminar each student contributes with one oral presentation based on a topic related to the
review essay. A short PM lining up the important points of the presentation is turned in to the
teacher. The students choose what topic they wish to talk about, and also if they want to present
during this seminar, or during the next seminar. All students participate in both seminar 1 and
seminar 2 with questions and comments to their fellow student colleagues.
Seminar 2
Wednesday 11 May 10:15-12:00 A010
Elin Naurin
12
Discussion seminar to help in the process of writing the review essay. During this or the above
seminar each student contributes with one oral presentation based on a topic related to the
review essay. A short PM lining up the important points of the presentation is turned in to the
teacher. The students choose what topic they wish to talk about, and also if they want to present
during this seminar, or during the above seminar. All students participate in both seminar 1 and
seminar 2 with questions and comments to their fellow student colleagues.
LECTURE 17. MEDIATIZATION IN GERMAN POLITICS
Friday 20 May 10:15-12:00
A110
Guest: Dr Reimar Zeh, University Erlangen-Nurnberg.
LECTURE 18. EXPERIMENTING WITH VOTERS: EMBARKING ON NEW FIELDS IN
OPINION STUDIES
Wednesday 25 May 10:15-12:00
A110
Johan Martinsson
Abstract: This lecture takes the students to the edge of voter studies by introducing the research
that dares to embark on experimental designs – one of the most rapidly growing fields in
contemporary political science. Recent advances in electoral studies are presented and the
students will get an overview of the advantages as well as of the difficulties and limitations that
face this approach. Is experimental research the future for studies of voter behaviour and public
opinion formation? Special focus is given to experimental research on the concept of “issue
ownership”. Can political actors benefit from being perceived to "own" issues, and how can such
a situation be achieved or maintained by political parties?




McDermott, Rose. 2002. “Experimental Methods in Political Science,” Annual Review of Political Science, vol.
5(June):31-61.
Druckman, James, Donald Green, James Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia. (2006). “The Growth and Development of
Experimental Research in Political Science,” American Political Science Review 100:627-635.
Dahlberg, S., & Martinsson, J. (2011 forthcoming) ”Issue Ownership – Who can steal it? and How?” Paper presented at
Midwest political science association meeting, Chicago, April 2011. Posted on GUL one week before the lecture.
Holian, D. B. (2004) “He’s Stealing my Issues! Clinton’s Crime Rhetoric and the Dynamics of Issue Ownership”
Students are expected to prepare one question each for the lecturer based on the articles above.
FINAL Seminar
Monday 30 May 10:15-17:00 A110 and B110
Bengt Johansson & Elin Naurin
OPTIONAL: LUNCH SEMINAR AT THE QUALITY OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTE
Tuesday 31 May 12.00-13.00 Room: Skagen
Susan Stokes
If your interested to go, please notice Elin Naurin
13
BREAKFAST REFLECTION
Wednesday 1 June 8:15-10:00 B225
Elin Naurin & Bengt Johansson
14
The review essay
The review essay is based on an individually chosen “book package” (see below), usually
consisting of two related books, together with relevant course literature. The essay has several
purposes: First, it is the single most important basis for your grade. Second, because all review
essays are distributed among participants, each will walk away from the course with a library of
accessible introductions to a range of research fields.
We anticipate that the average review essay will be about 3,000 words. Essays longer than 5,000
words will not be accepted.
More exactly, a good review essay should do three things:
 Summarize the research: Tell us about the most important theoretical ideas, models,
and arguments, as well as about the most important empirical results.
 Criticize the research: Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the research. Are the
theoretical ideas and empirical methods reasonable and sound? Do you buy the
conclusions? Why/Why not?
 Analyze the democratic relevance of the research: What does this research say about
the extent to which current democratic processes live up to assumptions made by various
models of democracy? What does this research suggest about how democratic processes
could be improved, given that we want to realize certain democratic models and values?
Notwithstanding these compulsory questions, you are free to organize your essay anyway you see
fit. It is not important in what order or manner you answer the questions. Try to discover the
structure that works best for “the story” you want to tell. Use your creativity and have fun!
Try to be coherent in the sense that you discuss roughly the same ideas and research results all
through the essay. For example, don’t change the topic completely when you come to the third
question.
To achieve this you must be selective. We don’t want you to summarize, criticize, and analyze the
democratic relevance of every page in the literature. On the contrary, it is an analytical task for
you to identify a nucleus of important ideas and research results, which will make for a coherent
and readable essay. It is often the case that there are several potential review essays to be written
based on a given book package, but that you choose to focus on one particularly interesting one.
Also, be prepared that whereas one book may focus entirely on topics a, b, and c, the second
book may focus on topics b, c, and d. In this situation, you should concentrate on the common
denominators b and c. Further, you need to decide whether you can integrate both topics b and c
into your essay, or whether you think it is enough to concentrate on just either b or c. Finally, for
some book packages it is perhaps unusually obvious what “the” topic is and which research
results could be brought up in the answers to the questions. However, many book packages
provide several topics that could make for a coherent review essay.
Almost inevitably, not only the book package but also some of the course literature will be
relevant to your review essay. Therefore, we expect you to refer to this literature where you think
it is relevant and improves the essay. We are generally impressed if you succeed in connecting
your topic to parts of the course literature in this way. (Of course, we are not impressed by
superficial “namedropping” doing little to improve the discussion.)
15
Don’t forget to include a list of references at the end of your essay, so that others can
comfortably read and use it in the future. Also, give your review essay a substantive title (rather
than calling it “review essay”).
Review essays will be checked with appropriate software to ensure that they are in fact the result
of original work.
The seminars
Review essay seminars:
During review essay seminars on the final day, we have roughly 10 minutes for the presentation
and 10 minutes for discussion. The students are divided into two groups that follow each other
during the day.
Seminar 1 & 2
Presentations during discussion seminars are to be seen as help for the final seminar. The talk is
5-10 minutes and the memo is 2-3 pages and should hint at answers to the same questions as
those relevant to the review essay. The groups are spread evenly via GUL between Seminar 1 and
Seminar 2. E-mail word/rtf files to Bengt or Elin respectively.
Course requirements and grading
The following requirements apply for passing the course:




Passing the written exam.
A decent review essay.
A decent oral review essay presentation on the final day.
Giving one presentation during discussion seminars (also to be reported in short
memo).
 Actively participating in the Day of Creativity by giving an oral group presentation.
 Actively participating in the breakfast reflection
What does decent mean? Here are the dimensions along which we evaluate your written and oral
efforts:




How ambitious is this effort in terms of workload and intellectual scope?
How grounded in the literature is it?
How coherent, consequent, and structured is it?
How original and independent is it? (i.e., to what extent does it only repeat points made in
the literature, and to what extent does it also use the literature to develop points that are
not clearly articulated in literature?)
 How persuasive is it when it comes to teasing out the democratic relevance and
implications of empirical research?
The written exam, the review essay, the oral presentations, and seminar performance all affect the
final grade, but the essay is the single most important element. The second most important
element is the written exam. There are two roads to VG (pass with distinction):
 Written exam VG + Review essay VG + everything else G
 Or Review essay VG + close to VG in written exam + important contributions to
discussion in seminars/memo
16
Late delivery of the review essay will affect your grade negatively.
Finally, we expect you to return any literature that you have borrowed. (In fact, you will not get a
grade until you do...). And please, please – with sugar on top – don’t take notes in our books.
17
Book packages
Each participant is to choose one of the “book packages” listed below. This cannot be done until
after the written exam. The list of packages may change somewhat, depending on the number
and background of participants.
The course will be better if everyone chooses a unique package. To achieve this, we strongly
encourage you to make a rather long mental list of packages that could be of interest to you,
rather than keeping your eyes fixed on a single one. We flip a coin if several participants
nevertheless want the same book package.
Most packages consist of two books, but some of one book only. When this occurs, it is usually
because we consider that book unusually demanding in terms of intellectual scope, methodology,
and perhaps sheer size.
Participants will not need to buy any book packages. They can be borrowed from us.
Review essays are distributed among the participants, which means each participant will walk
away from the course with a library of accessible introductions to a wide range of research fields.
Package 1: Political knowledge and accountability
Delli Carpini, Michael, and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Hutchings, Vincent L. 2003. Public Opinion and Democratic Accountability: How Citizens Learn about Democracy.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Package 2: The impact of identity and ethnicity on social solidarity
Berg, Linda. 2007. Multi-level Europeans. The Influence of Territorial Attachments on Political Trust and Welfare
Attitudes". Göteborg Studies in Politics.
Crepaz, Markus M.L. 2007. Trust beyond Borders. Immigration, the Welfare State, and Identity in Modern Societies.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Package 3: The miracle of aggregation?
Page, Benjamin I., and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1992. The Rational Public. Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy
Preferences. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Althaus, Scott L. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics: Opinion Surveys and the Will of the People.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Package 4: The nature and origins of political preferences
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Granberg, Donald, and Sören Holmberg. 1988. The Political System Matters. Social Psychology and Voting
Behavior in Sweden and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Package 5: Personal experiences vs. the mass media as political information sources
Mutz, Diana C. 1998. Impersonal Influence. How Perceptions of Mass Collectives Affect Political Attitudes.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kumlin, Staffan. 2004. The Personal and the Political: How Personal Welfare State Experiences Affect Political Trust
and Ideology. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
18
Package 6: Shortcuts and deliberation
Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Fishkin, James S. 1995. The Voice of the People. Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Package 7: Political representation and opinion formation in the European Union
Schmitt, Hermann, and Jacques Thomassen (Eds.). 1999. Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European
Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gabel, Matthew J. 1998. Interests and Integration: Market Liberalization, Public Opinion and European Union. Ann
Arbor, MI: Michigian University Press.
Package 8: Change and causality in political participation
Norris, Pippa. 2002. Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.
Goul Andersen, Jørgen, and Jens Hoff. 2001. Democracy and Citizenship in Scandinavia. New York: Palgrave.
Package 9: Gender and participation: Why are women less participating?
Burns, Nancy, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender,
Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Package 10: Referendums
Butler, David, and Austin Ranney (Eds.). 1994. Referendums around the World: The Growing Use of Direct
Democracy. London: Macmillan.
Jenssen, Anders Todal, Pertti Pesonen, and Mikael Gilljam (Eds.). 1998. To Join or Not to Join. Three Nordic
Referendums on Membership in the European Union. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Package 11: Mobilizing and stimulating participation in the US
Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. 2004. Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America.
Harlow: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers.
Campbell, Andrea. 2005. How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Package 12: The impact of election campaigns: comparing the past and the present
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Bernhard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet. 1944. The People's Choice. How the Voter Makes
Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
Norris, Pippa, John Curtice, David Sanders, Margaret Scammell, and Holli Semetko. 1999. On Message:
Communicating the Campaign. London: Sage.
Package 13: Agenda-setting and framing
Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder. 1987. News that Matters. Television and American Opinion. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Package 14: Evaluating modern mass media
Capella, Joseph N., and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. 1997. Spiral of Cynicism. The Press and the Public Good. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Norris, Pippa. 2000. A Virtous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Society. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Package 15: Political Trust: Causes and Effects
Norris, Pippa (Ed.). 1999. Critical Citizens. Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Dalton, Russel J. 2004. Democratic Challanges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced
Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19
Package 16: Social representation and gender
Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mateo Diaz, Mercedes. 2002. Are Women in Parliament Representing Women? Université catholique de
Louvain.
Package 17: The relationship between public opinion and politicians
Esaiasson, Peter, and Sören Holmberg. 1996. Representation from Above. Members of Parliament and
Representative Democracy in Sweden. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Manza, Jeff, Fay Lomax Cook, and Benjamin I. Page (Eds.). 2002. Navigating Public Opinion: Polls, Policy, and
the Future of American Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Package 18: Keeping their promises?
Naurin, Elin (2009); Promising Democracy. Parties, Citizens and Election Promises. Gothenburg Studies in Politics
118.
Stokes, Susan C. 2001. Mandates and Democracy: Neoliberalism by Surprise in Latin America. Cambridge
University Press.
Package 19: Recent trends in research on political participation
Jan van Deth, José Ramon Montero and Anders Westholm (eds). 2007. Citizenship and Involvement in
European Democracies. London: Routledge.
Package 20: Recent trends in research on accountability and economic voting
Maravall, José María, and Ignacio Sánchez-Cuenca, eds. 2008. Controlling Governments: Voters, Institutions, and
Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van der Brug, Wouter, Cees van der Eijk, and Mark N. Franklin. 2007. The Economy and the Vote. Economic
Conditions and Elections in Fifteen Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Package 21: Global Political Campaigning
Plasser; Fritz & Plasser, Gunda 2002: Global Political Campaigning: A Worldwide Analysis of Campaign
Professionals and Their Practices. Praeger Publishers.
Sussman, Gerald 2005: Global Electioneering: Campaign Consulting, Communications, and Corporate Financing.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Package 22: Campaigning and New Media Technology
Davis, Richard 2009: Typing Politics: The Role of Blogs in American Politics. Oxford University Press.
Hendricks, John Allen & Denton, Robert E., Jr. 2010, Communicator-In-Chief: How Barack
Obama Used New Media Technology to Win the White House. Lexington Books.
Package 23: Avoiding politics?
Eliasoph, Nina 1998: Avoiding Politics. How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Gamson, A. William 1992. Talking Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
20