PSC 356 introduces students to a range of conceptual formulations that political scholars and practitioners use to describe, analyze, and understand political conflicts. It offers students the experience of applying those resources analytically, to render comprehensible some episode of conflictual political contention.
The course consists of two modules. During the first module, we will review works aimed toward the development of generalizations (theory) regarding political conflicts. Although they treat the same topics, students should expect these works to overlap one another only partially. At points, students will find them contradictory or otherwise mutually incompatible. There is scholarly contention, it seems, about how to understand political contention. The first module includes two cumulative examinations that assess student comprehension of the material.
Students will have organized themselves in small teams oriented to the analysis of a specific political conflict. During the first module, students will propose particular conflicts to analyze. The instructor will then compose a list of conflicts approved for analysis. Students will then indicate their topical preferences. The instructor will consult these as he assigns students to teams.
Each team will prepare a briefing on the conflict they will have analyzed. They will each present their briefings in class during the second module. Each team will be allotted half the class period for its briefing, minus five minutes for questions. As the class period is 80 minutes, briefings should run 30-35 minutes. Teams are encouraged to be creative. They may freely utilize the multi-media classroom facilities (e.g., powerpoint, web, video, audio) in their briefings. Briefings should be rehearsed and polished. Do not read. Do not overload slides with text.
Each team should meet with the instructor after having constructed an initial work plan for their project. They may also consult with the instructor about their briefing, as necessary. Briefings will be graded on the bases of their quality and on their effective use of concepts developed in the first module.
Team projects are useful experiences for students, as they will often in their professional careers be required to work jointly with others However, the question of fair credit always arises whenever students are assigned team projects. Although all team members will receive the same base grade, the instructor will award extra credit to students who have made outstanding contributions in the preparation of their team's briefing. After the briefings, each student will submit (for five points) a "briefing report," in which they characterize the extent of their own contributions and single out others on their team who have made outstanding contributions. Extra credit will be awarded on the basis of this information. Under no circumstances will students be allowed to single out fellow team members who have not pulled their own weight in the briefing preparation. Students who complain about their fellow team members in these reports will not receive full credit for the briefing report exercise.
At the close of the semester, each student will submit brief (2 or 3 page) reviews of the briefings. In these "briefing debriefings," students will assess the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the various briefings, offering suggestions for improvement.
| Task | Contribution |
| Exam I | |
| Exam II | |
| Briefing | |
| Briefing Report | |
| Debriefing | |
| Participation |
Attendance is mandatory, and will be included in the participation grade. The instructor does not allow students to perform "extra work" at the end of the semester to improve their grades. Doing so only places unfair pressure on other faculty to do the same in their courses. All written assignments (i.e., briefing reports and debriefings) must be submitted in hardcopy. Emailed submissions are not accepted.
The most recent version of this document is available at http://web.syr.edu/~gavan/psc356s06.html.