SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

CMNS 110-3 INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNICATION STUDIES

SYLLABUS: Spring 2007


Roman Onufrijchuk:
TAs:
Daniel Ahadi
Rahat Imran
Imran Munir
Guoxin Xing

Course materials posted at: http://www.sfu.ca/~roman/


1. Course description:
This course provides students with a general introduction to the rigorous and systematic study of communication phenomena, history, practices, media, scholarship, explanatory and directional theories, and criticism.

Beginning from the origins and foundations of communication studies, the course traces the development of communication ecologies, surveys oral and writing as media and cultural frameworks for articulation of relationships, examines the formation and mediated nature of the self, the formal and relation-conditioning properties of media, as well as the social forces, fields, media and institutions that shape, and are shaped by, communication processes.

The course introduces students to intellectual tools for critical assessment of images, messages, practices, media institutions and technologies making up our information-dense and time-urgent world.


1.2. Required Texts:
1. Plato. Phaedrus & The Seventh and Eighth Letters. Translated by Walter Hamilton. London: Penguin, 1973.
2. Watson, James, and Anne Hill. Dictionary of Media and Communication Studies. 6 ed. London: Arnold; Oxford University Press, 2003.
3. Weekly readings assigned from the Internet through the “Core Text,” or TOC.

1.3. Course requirements
Survey Assignment 10%
Midterm (25%)
Critical Review (25%)
Tutorials (20%)
Final Assignment (20%)


1.4. Course Readings

WK 4
4a. “The Toronto School,” AKA “media theory, media ecology”
1. Harold Innis & Empire & Communication
2. Marshall McLuhan
3. Eric Havelock & mimesis
4. Walter Ong & orality, literacy and print culture

4b. Systems & Pragmatics
1. Gregory Bateson
2. Paul Watzlawick
3. Double Bind
4. Ronald David Laing
5. Niklas Luhmann


WK 5.
5. Symbolic Interactionism (Chicago School)
1. Charles Peirce
2. John Dewey*
3. George Herbert Mead*
4. Charles Horton Cooley
5. Human Ecology
6. Chicago School

5b. Constructivism and dramaturgy
1. Alfred Schütz
2. Social Constructivism
3. Erving Goffman
4. Dramaturgy
5. Impression management
6. Frame Analysis


WK 6.
6. The Crowd, Masses, & Emergence of Publics
1. Mass Society
2. Social psychology
3. Crowd psychology
4. Le Bon
5. Tarde
6. Imitation
7. The public sphere

WK 7.
7a. Propaganda & Indoctrination
1. Propaganda
2. Indoctrination
3. Carl Hovland
4. Sleeper Effect
5. Groupthink
6. Jacques Ellul

7b. Administrative Research, PR, & US Empiricism
1. Paul Lazarsfeld
2. Two-step flow of communication
3. Harold Lasswell
4. Walter Lippmann
5. Edward Bernays
6. Ivy Lee
7. Elton Mayo
8. Elihu Katz
9. Uses and gratifications

WK 8.
8. Midterm Exam

WK 9.
9. Critical Theory, False Consciousness & Ideology
1. Dialectics (recommended)
2. Critical theory
3. False consciousness
4. Ideology
5. Walter Benjamin

WK 10.
10a. Structuralism, Semiosis, Semiurgy & Semioclasis
1. Ferdinand de Saussure
2. Claude Lévi-Strauss
3. Roland Barthes
4. Louis Althusser

10b. Cultural Studies (CCCS, AKA “Birmingham School”)
1. Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies
2. Cultural hegemony
3. Raymond Williams
4. Stuart Hall
5. Antonio Gramsci

WK 11.
11. Political Economy and Ethics of Media
1. Dallas Walker Smythe
2. C. B. Macpherson
3. Robert W. McChesney
4. Manufacturing Consent
5. Concentration of media ownership
6. Media democracy
7. Media ethics

WK 12.
12. CMNS Research Methods & Paradigms
1. Methodology
2. Paradigm
3. Research Domains (& Paradigms) in Cmns Studies
4. Critical realism
5. Qualitative research
6. Discourse analysis
7. Critical discourse analysis
8. Audience response
9. Focus group
10. Content analysis

WK 13.
Plato. Phaedrus & the Seventh and Eighth Letters. Translated by Walter Hamilton. London: Penguin, 1973., pp. 19-104.

(*All readings refer to the mailed-out reading packages, except for week 13).



2. GUIDELINES:

2.1. SURVEY/FIRST ASSIGNMENT (10%) Due week 4, Sept. 26.

The assignment is in TWO (2) parts:

2.1.1. Part ONE: 3 pages 750 words +/-, double-spaced; concision is an asset).

Report on what you learned in the special library seminars arranged for your tutorial in week 3. This should include a discussion of procedures and sources you followed in order to identify either three topics (which will lead your selection of Wikipedia articles) or three Wikipedia articles you plan to pursue for your Critical Review (due week 10) and midterm (week 7).

The report should include a discussion of resources you learned about (databases, search engines, collections, journals and so forth, how you used them, and what you came up with.

2.1.2. Part TWO: Biographic sketch: 150-word biography (3rd person)
This is a statement about you serving as an introduction or a “publishable thumb-nail” or bio. It should contain something about your past, about what
you think you’d like to get out of this course or why you’ve enrolled in it, and something of what you hope awaits you in the future.

2.1.3. NOTE:
Parts 1 and 2, in the form of an integrated document, in hard copy, are to be handed in to your TA in tutorials in the week the assignment is due..

The biographical statement, Part 2 only, is to be sent to me (roman@sfu.ca) by e-mail, not as an attachment but in the message field. The “To” field of the e-mail should contain “CMNS 110.”

Proper academic form is expected in the first assignment, and all written work thereafter: Clarity and transparency of the organization of discourse, succinct writing, correct use of citations and bibliographies, introductory summary, clear point of departure, conclusion or summation, course-driven vocabulary and copia, overall presentation, and the presence of the “something extra,” are all factored into grading criteria.


2.2. Tutorials.
20%: Briefing: documentation and presentation, 10%; participation/attendance, 10%.

You pay for the tutorials. We have them so that the literature, ideas, questions and problems, that arise out of the learning process can be explored with greater depth than can be done in the lecture hall. In addition to briefings and discussion, vocabulary and concepts arising from readings and lectures are reviewed weekly. Attendance is taken.

Briefings begin Week 4 and, with the exception of week 7, run to week 13.
Briefings involve a student-prepared handout of approximately 2 pages and a five (5) minute oral introduction to the document and briefing on its contents.

The briefing note, or “documentation”/handout (500 +/- words: approx. 2 sides of a standard letter-size sheet of paper), should be comprised of a synopsis statement of the author’s key argument (s), supported or illustrated by a set of key quotes drawn from the reading and properly cited, as well as the student’s assessment of the argument or questions the article raises. The note will have a proper title, your “name & number,” the TA’s name and tutorial section, and provide correct bibliographic data on the article. Any of the academic styles (e.g. APA, Chicago etc.) is acceptable, so long as it is used consistently. Use of charts and infographics in addition to the 500+/- is welcomed and encouraged.

Since briefings will be on the Wikipedia material, all of which is interlinked, it seems reasonable that briefing notes provide some indication the student has enriched their grasp of the matter to hand by having explored some of these. Where possible connections between the Wiki material and Watson and Hall should be explored, and can be used as an organizing device – one of many – for the briefing. When in doubt, compare and contrast. To do that , you need context and is effective integration is always rewarding.

The “presentation” is more of an introduction to the reading and context-work you’ve done and the note you’re providing, than a performance or some sort of putative pedagogical method. You basically “speak to” what you’ve already written. In effect, having made their reading notes on an article for them, you’re just “walking” your colleagues and TA through the material you’ve just handed out. Neither drama, show, nor production required, or desired; just effective “show and tell.” At best, you’re telling a story that people want to hear, because they’ll need this material as much as you will in the exams and research paper (course-fed copia). Questions and discussion following briefings are encouraged.


2.3. Exams
There is one in-class exam in the course, .
Midterm (25%: 15% short answer; 10% on essay types)
Week 8 (27th February), in class, closed book, 2 hours.

One of the essay type questions will be directly related to your library seminar and subsequent survey assignment:

Of the three articles or topics you’ll have chosen at the library seminar and written up for your survey assignment, you’ll choose one and write a progress report on your research as one of the essay type questions for the midterm. You will then be required to explain why you’ve chosen the topic you did, what you think the limitations of the entry to be and provide reasons, and which information you have begin to consult so you can effectively critique and revise it so that these limitations have been overcome. Some discussion and exposition of the substantive content of your explorations is expected.

2.4. Written And Research Assignments
There will two assignments requiring research and critical assessment of assigned themes or questions for development in essay form.

2.4. Written And Research Assignments
There will two assignments requiring research and critical assessment of assigned themes or questions for development in essay form.


2.4.1. Research Assignment (25%) due week 10 (week of March 10th; Length 1250 words (+/- 250), or something like 5-7 pages.
You will have a choice of three formats for the research assignment, two related to Wikipedia, and one still-driven, but not tied to the “core text.” 


A. Requirements:
1. To execute any of the options listed in this assignment, you will need to have consulted and drawn supporting arguments, evidence or examples from a minimum of:
i.No less than five (5) scholarly sources (more’s OK).
ll.Up to four(4) web or periodical (newspapers or magazines) sources.

2. Papers, as formal written research discourse, will adhere to proper academic form, be explicitly organized (headings and sub headings), use citations (reference sources of the material they use), and include a full bibliography. Any commonly accepted style is fine, although it should be used consistently. TAs may have preferred styles they can recommend.

3. Where in-text links, like Wikipedia’s, are required, and since we aren’t working in HTML, you may adopt any convention to indicate words that are, or would be, linked to other Wikipedia entries, so long as you use it consistently and introduce it in some manner on first use (usually in a foot- or endnote). All that need be said is that parenthesis, or “[ ],” or italicization, or yellow highlighter, or whatever, will be used to indicate internally linked terms in your paper.

B. Options
Option 1.  Critical review: Fix, deepen, elaborate, enrich or expand on something related to communication or mediation already on Wiki. 

Option 2.  Original contribution: Suggest and draft something new for Wiki (adopt Wiki's style to make an entry on a subject you know they've overlooked). 

Option 3.  Critical Intervention: An argument or thesis (position) on a topic of your concern drawn from the course, which is supported by the evidence you've assembled through your research. (No Wiki component required) 


2.4.1.1. Option 1: Critical Review
The Critical review is a criticism of an extant Wiki entry and/(+) your revised version of the selected entry, or reasonable portions of it if the original exceeds 5 pages.

Ideally, this can be the final version of your research and critique, and proposed revisions of the communication-related Wikipedia entry or article that you’d written up for the midterm.

The critical review should provide a discussion of the quality of the contribution made by whatever (person, issue, school, medium etc.) the entry or article is about to the study of communication, and identify its limitations, errors or dissatisfactions with the article itself. Then, based explicitly on research, provide evidence of why these are limitations, omissions, exaggerations or mistakes in fact or interpretation (that’ll be the “critical,” or “analytico-evaluative” part). Corrections required, are then suggested, and demonstrated by rewriting the offending, adding, or even deleting portions (editing) of the article. Please note: In this option, when editing the entry text in your paper, you must adhere to the stylistic format and tone used by Wikipedia.

Any external links added to the originals must be listed and provided with descriptive captions of no more than 100 words. Like the bibliographies, these are not included in word counts. Should you feel the need to have any of the external links current in the entry removed, these too have to be listed and provided with rationales, of no more than 100 words. Students should not feel to compelled to remove or add links, but should follow these procedures of they do.


2.4.1.2. Option 2: Original contribution
As becomes clear, not everything one would like to see covered exists in Wikipedia. You may have discovered something while working with the readings or in preparing for assignments that you know ought to be added to Wiki.

While your work, based on your research, will be original in content, in this Option, like in the previous one, you must adhere to Wikipedia’s style and tone. Additionally you must provide a rationale explaining why you believe the entry is warranted. Consistent with Wiki’s style, your entry should have a bibliography as well as internal and external links. External links must be listed and provided with descriptive captions of no more than 100 words. Like the bibliographies, these are not included in word counts. Students are encouraged to consult Wikipedia for a useful style and substance guide.


2.4.1.3. Option 3: Critical Intervention
A critical intervention is reasoned and supported discourse that is interested, which is to say, that it has an agenda, an intent, a point to make, an argument to advance or champion, an axe to grid, a beef to make. This option requires that you take an explicit position (a thesis) on some course-driven issue of interest to you, and then argue it using your research to support and illustrate your points. The intervention, in addition to the required research material, must also demonstrate a direct link to the course showing how the intervention fits into the ideas explored in lectures, and/or tutorials, and/or course literature.

All research requirements and word counts apply to this option as they do to 1 & 2, the difference is in tone. Whereas the first two options require a even, dispassionate non-normative, “objective” tone, this option requires reasoned, informed and supported, and – if you’re good -- spirited argument. A rant? Rants, while big on feeling, tend to be low on content and reasoning. The exact opposite is required, lots of reasoning and content.

Examples could include “TV makes kids hyperactive,” or “TV is a sedative,” “Oral tradition is still essential for democracy,” or “The music industry is the enemy of true art,” or “The body as medium: anorexia,” or “Advertising produces obese kids,” or “The Canadian government is the biggest single advertising client in Canada,” or “Men’s images in movies are changing, but not as fast as their roles in on TV” or What Capitalism and sport culture,” or “PR truth & Truth,” or “Why we ought to study rhetoric from grade 1 up” or etc. Now, go on, make it stick, prove it, show me, convince me. My questions to you would be: Why should I care? To whom else but you, does this matter, and why? How do you know this? What must I think and do after I’ve heard you out? When you make your arguments, and someone asks: “Sez who?”, what do you say? As you reach the end of your discourse, how will you be prepared for someone saying: “So . . .,” will you have a “punchline?”


2.4.2. Final Assignment (based on Plato’s Phaedrus, pp.19-108, 20%; Length: 750 (+/- 250) words. Due at the end of week 14 (10th April, 2007); drop-off arrangements will be made and announced in Week 13 lecture.

DRAFT of Assignment: Finalized version provided in Week 13.
Socrates argues that if one wants to be an effective and moving speaker (rhetor), one must know the truth. Which truth is Socrates referring to? Now, we know, that rhetoric (using the term as an all-encompassing name for any form of expression – “one single art that governs all speaking,” as Plato puts it through Socrates lips) is a continuous feature in all the many theatres of daily, personal, social, cultural and political life. Using two thinkers, schools, paradigms or communication innovations, propose two different definitions of the truth, were we to apply Socrates’ formula to some of the other theatres making up our lives.


3. COURSE COMMUNICATION
3.1. I use e-mail a fair bit to communicate with the class. The universitry provides me with an e-mail list of all registered students in the course, and that’s what I use to send out clarifications, announcements and alerts of postings on http://www.sfu.ca/~roman/. You must use your SFU e-mail account (or check it regularly) to get these mailings.

3.2. E-mails addressed to me must contain your name, and your TA’s, as well as the course name (I teach more than CMNS 110).

3.3. I read and return e-mails.

3.4. I neither read nor reply to dumb e-mails, however.

Definition of dumb e-mail: “ An e-mail asking a long convoluted question or even a simple one that the sender could have answered themselves using either the course web-pages, my e-mails to the class, a search engine, or the course “text,” Wikipedia,. E-mails omitting name, course, etc., whilst not dumb, are frustrating, which makes the receiver prone to ignoring them and thereby foregoing the further irritation and loss of time trying to figure out who’s who & what’s what.

3.5. All else course related, is fair game.

3.6. Complex issues and explanations are better dealt with F2F. I do not have office hours, but am on the Hill two days a week and available to meet in the late morning before class, though after class is tricky for me. Otherwise, I’m available downtown in the environs of Harbour Centre. Appoints can be arranged by e-mail.



---
The School expects that the grades in this course will bear some reasonable relation to established university-wide practices with respect to both levels and distributions of grades. The School follows Policy T10.02 with respect to “Intellectual Honesty” and “Academic Discipline” (see SFU Calendar, General Regulations).

SYLLABUS PDF:
CMNS 110 SPR 07 SYLLABUS