|
Academic staff member responsible for the design of the course syllabus
(name, surname, academic title/scientific degree, email address and signature)
|
Dr. Avdi Smajljaj asmajljaj@epoka.edu.al
|
|
Main Course Lecturer (name, surname, academic title/scientific degree, email address
and signature) and Office Hours:
|
Dr. Avdi Smajljaj asmajljaj@epoka.edu.al
|
|
Second Course Lecturer(s) (name, surname, academic title/scientific degree, email
address and signature) and Office Hours:
|
NA
|
| Language: |
English
|
| Compulsory/Elective: |
Elective
|
| Study program: (the study for which this course is offered) |
Master of Science in Political Science and International Relations
|
| Classroom and Meeting Time: |
|
| Teaching Assistant(s) and Office Hours: |
NA
|
| Code of Ethics: |
Code of Ethics of EPOKA University
Regulation of EPOKA University "On Student Discipline"
|
| Attendance Requirement: |
|
| Course Description: |
The course explores the intersection of politics, digital technology and artificial intelligence, examining how they shape governmental processes, political behavior, and democratic participation. Through a combination of theoretical frameworks from political science and communication, students will investigate topics such as algorithmic governance, e-government, digital campaigning, social movements, populism, misinformation, and the implications of AI for democratic institutions. Special attention is given to both opportunities and challenges presented by digital technologies and AI systems in democratic systems, including questions of accountability, transparency, and ethical deployment of automated decision-making in political contexts.
|
| Course Objectives: |
This course examines how information and communication technologies (ICTs) and
artificial intelligence systems (AI) are serving or breaking democracy. Students will
analyze whether digital technologies transform or reinforce existing patterns in citizen government interactions, focusing on three key areas: government operations, political
competition, and civil society engagement. The course aims to develop students’
critical thinking skills in evaluating how digital platforms and algorithmic decision making affect political processes, policy, participation, and representation in real-world
scenarios.
|
|
BASIC CONCEPTS OF THE COURSE
|
| 1 |
e-governance
|
| 2 |
accountability in e-politics
|
| 3 |
AI in politics
|
| 4 |
digital politics
|
| Week |
Topics |
| 1 |
Introduction to the course |
| 2 |
Government in the digital age How is government changing in the digital era? Computerisation of government bureaucracies is far from new; indeed, governments were one of the main developers of original computer technology. But in the contemporary era they have turned from producer to consumer and have often seemed far behind the private sector in terms of the ways in which they interact with citizens and make decisions. As machine learning and decision support systems come to be more and more important in the fabric of society, how will government itself change in the coming decades? Farrell, H. (2012). The consequences of the internet for politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 35-52. Fung, A., Gilman, H. R., & Shkabatur, J. (2013). Six models for the internet+ politics. International Studies Review, 15(1), 30-47. Silcock, R. (2001). What is e-government. Parliamentary Affairs, 54(1), 88-101. – Anshari, M., & Lim, S. A. (2017). E-government with big data enabled through smartphone for public services: Possibilities and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(13), 1143-1158 |
| 3 |
Policy- making in the digital age Policy-making is a fundamental aspect of politics, centred on the principle of finding solutions to societal problems. The well-established policy cycle model outlines key stages, including agenda setting, policy formulation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation. In this class, we delve into a discussion on how digital technology has influenced different facets of the policy-making process. Gilardi, F., Gessler, T., Kubli, M., & M¨uller, S. (2022b). Social media and political agenda setting. Political Communication, 39(1), 39–60. – Busuioc, M. (2021). Accountable artificial intelligence: Holding algorithms to account. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 825–836. |
| 4 |
Much has been written about the supposed decline of the traditional actors exerting influence in the political process, most notably political parties during elections, and the corresponding rise of new forms of organization and campaigning. Digital technologies enable spontaneous organizing without having to depend on formal organizations, lowering the costs for like-minded people to find each other, join networks and coordinate around a shared cause. Will the spread of the internet spell 2025 the end of formal political organizations? This section explores the role of the internet in parties, campaigns, and elections. Dommett, K., Fitzpatrick, J., Mosca, L., & Gerbaudo, P. (2021). “Are digital parties the future of party organization? A symposium on The Digital Party: Political Organisation and Online Democracy by Paolo Gerbaudo.” Italian Political Science Review, 51(1), 136-149. – Guess, A. M., et al. (2023). How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign? Science, 381(6656), 398-404. |
| 5 |
From debunking myths surrounding data-driven campaigns to understanding their potential for democratic disruption, students will gain insights into the complexities, ethical considerations, and implications of utilizing data analytics in the pursuit of political objectives. The class aims to equip participants with a comprehensive understanding of the role and challenges associated with data-driven campaigning in modern democracies. Nickerson, D. W., & Rogers, T. (2014). Political Campaigns and Big Data. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(2), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.2.51. – Kefford, G., et al. (2023). Data-driven campaigning and democratic disruption: Evidence from six advanced democracies. Party Politics, 29(3), 448-462 |
| 6 |
Do digital tools foster or hamper protest and collective action? Ever since the protest cycle of 2010 and 2011 (the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street), and up to Fridays for Future, Last Generation, Black Lives Matter and #MeToo, the idea that digital media facilitate collective action has been a major theme in the public imagination. New communication technologies have made organizations less central to mass participation, facilitating the formation of new movements, the unfolding of a generational shift in activism, and the emergence of new issues and transmedia activists. And yet, examples from the recent past also illustrate that digital media can also be used to repress protesters, as in the case of Gezi Park in Istanbul and the Umbrella movement in Hong Kong. While some scholars argue that changes in the available information technology might impact the character and potential of citizen collaboration, or the “Logic of Collective Action”, others suggest that the internet is becoming a formidable tool for governments to repress protesters. In this class, we discuss the impact of the internet on protest mobilization. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The Logic of Connective Action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739-768. 2025 – Castells, M. (2012). Changing the world in a network society. In M. Castells, Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age (pp. 246-272). Cambridge: Polity |
| 7 |
While censoring the Internet has long been considered impossible, repressive governments have learnt how to prevent individuals from using it and minimize dissent, whereas democratic governments have tried to use technology to restrain unwanted information. Today, the Internet can be viewed as a battleground over technical, social, and political control, opposing governments to one another, to their citizens, and to competing commercial groups. This class examines the challenges of the increasingly widespread control of the Internet, it overviews the motivations to censor content and users, and discusses the types and tools of censorship that are currently deployed. Ververis, V., Marguel, S., & Fabian, B. (2020). Cross-Country comparison of Internet censorship: A literature review. Policy & Internet, 12(4), 450-473. – Warf, B. (2011). Geographies of global Internet censorship. GeoJournal, 76, 1-23 |
| 8 |
Midterm |
| 9 |
Populism and political radicalism are undeniable features of the contemporary political landscape. Donald Trump in the US, Marine Le Pen in France, Narendra Modi in India, and the Brothers of Italy: radicals are being drawn from all ends of the spectrum into the heart of contemporary politics. Some fear this may presage the end of liberal democracy as we know it, with citizens increasingly willing to countenance politicians with strong authoritarian tendencies. Others see this as a healthy way of the system releasing popular anger, and argue that, once in touch with power, populists frequently adopt more moderate positions. Behind all of this lurks the question of the impact of the internet, with its ability to foster connections between people of radical views. Mudde, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2012). Populism and (liberal) democracy: A framework for analysis. In Populism in Europe and the Americas: Threat or corrective for democracy? (Vol. 1,p. 5). – Stier, S., Kirkizh, N., Froio, C., & Schroeder, R. (2020). Populist attitudes and selective exposure to online news: A cross-country analysis combining web tracking and surveys. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(3), 426-446 |
| 10 |
The use of social media has prompted inquiries into their influence on the dissemination of misinformation, disinformation, and various types of fake news. This section delves into the mechanisms through which emerging digital platforms and social media foster the acceptance of unverified conspiracy theories, enable the proliferation of false information, and contribute to the restructuring of the public arena. Jungherr, A., & Schroeder, R. (2021). Disinformation and the structural transformations of the public arena: Addressing the actual challenges to democracy. Social Media+ Society, 7(1), 2056305121988928. – Jungherr, A., & Rauchfleisch, A. (2024). Negative Downstream Effects of Alarmist Disinformation Discourse: Evidence from the United States. Political Behavior, 1-21 |
| 11 |
This session will focus on your research paper or podcast. You should come prepared with a topic of interest, an academic paper that has inspired you, and questions about the essay. Following the collective discussion, you will be required to create an outline for your essay or podcast. Additionally, we will critically analyze the strengths and weaknesses of using Large Language Models for this task with a focus on the most diffused one, Chat GPT. We will explore how to effectively utilize Chat GPT’s capabilities, assess its potential advantages, and recognize any limitations it may have. What potential advantages and disadvantages does Chat GPT offer? How can we make informed decisions regarding the utilization of Chat GPT for writing? What are the strengths and weaknesses of Chat GPT that enhance or undermine our work? Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind 49,433-460. – Fuchs, K. (2023). Exploring the opportunities and challenges of NLP models in higher education: Is Chat GPT a blessing or a curse? Frontiers in Education, 8. |
| 12 |
Through an exploration of key readings, the course examines how digital media platforms, such as social media, influence the formation of echo chambers and contribute to political polarization. The discussions will encompass the dynamics of audience fragmentation in the age of digital media, shedding light on the ways individuals engage with political information online. By critically analyzing the impact of digital media on political discourse and ideological divisions, students will gain insights into the complex interplay between technology and polarization in contemporary political landscapes. Barberá, P. (2020). Social media, echo chambers, and political polarization. In Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform, 34. – Webster, J. G., & Ksiazek, T. B. (2012). The Dynamics of Audience Fragmentation: Public Attention in an Age of Digital Media. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2011.01616. |
| 13 |
This class explores the intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and democracy. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a field of computer science focused on creating systems that can perform tasks that typically require human intelligence. It encompasses machine learning, where algorithms improve their performance over time through experience, and deep learning, inspired by the structure and function of the human brain. We delve into AI’s definition and its impactful role in shaping politics, particularly in elections and individuals’ access to information. From machine learning to ethical considerations, we navigate the complexities of AI’s influence on democracy, recognizing its critical importance in our evolving political and societal structures. Bathaee, Y. (2018). The Artificial Intelligence Black Box and the Failure of Intent and Causation. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31(2), 879–938. 2025 – Schippers, B. (2020). Artificial intelligence and democratic politics. Political Insight, 11(1), 32-35. |
| 14 |
Course revision |
| No |
Program Competencies |
Cont. |
| Master of Science in Political Science and International Relations Program |
| 1 |
Having and using advanced knowledge and comprehension supported by textbooks including actual knowledge in political sciences and international relations literature, materials and the other scientific resources. |
5 |
| 2 |
Analyzing data, ideas and concepts of current political issues and international relations, determining complex events and topics, making discussions and developing new suggestions in accordance with researches. |
5 |
| 3 |
Having knowledge and thought about actual topics and problems together with their historical, social and cultural aspects. |
5 |
| 4 |
Introducing those who are interested in politics and international events with the topics of Political Science and IR and teaching clearly the problems and the types of solutions. |
5 |
| 5 |
Improving skills of working together with the main social science disciplines and other disciplines which are related to Political Science and International Relations. |
5 |
| 6 |
Improving critical thinking and skills in making research independently. |
5 |
| 7 |
Developing solutions about the problems and conflicts which are common in national and international arena. |
5 |
| 8 |
Improving skills for leadership and research and analyze capacity of those who is responsible with national and international ones. |
5 |
| 9 |
Knowing any foreign language enough to communicate with colleagues and understand actual researches and articles. |
5 |
| 10 |
Gaining IT skills to use computer and technology) in order to reach actual knowledge. |
5 |
| 11 |
Gaining skills to follow societal, scientific and ethic values during collecting, interpreting, conducting of data related to social and political developments. |
5 |
| 12 |
Having consciousness about human rights and environment. |
5 |
| 13 |
Gaining the skills to follow actual developments and pursue long-life learning. |
5 |
