Governing the Future: Goals and Tools
A.Y. 2023/2024
Learning objectives
The course has an interdisciplinary character and it pursues three main learning objectives.
First, the course aims at introducing students to major topics and themes animating ongoing public debates. The selected themes and topics will be addressed with a view to provide a practical sense of the challenges and opportunities connected to current political or social-economic phenomena and trends, on the one hand, and to offer students the opportunity to better grasp the requirements for devising long-term strategic plans, on the other.
Second, the course intends to familiarize students with methodological tools to critically interpret political or socio-economic phenomena, to analyze empirical data and to develop rigorous research designs in the field of social sciences and philosophy.
Third, the course aims at offering students high-level training in logics and argumentative strategies, which will strengthen students' analytical capacities and their ability to assess and defend normative and policy proposals.
First, the course aims at introducing students to major topics and themes animating ongoing public debates. The selected themes and topics will be addressed with a view to provide a practical sense of the challenges and opportunities connected to current political or social-economic phenomena and trends, on the one hand, and to offer students the opportunity to better grasp the requirements for devising long-term strategic plans, on the other.
Second, the course intends to familiarize students with methodological tools to critically interpret political or socio-economic phenomena, to analyze empirical data and to develop rigorous research designs in the field of social sciences and philosophy.
Third, the course aims at offering students high-level training in logics and argumentative strategies, which will strengthen students' analytical capacities and their ability to assess and defend normative and policy proposals.
Expected learning outcomes
Knowledge and understanding
Students are expected to acquire in-depth knowledge concerning some major issues at the centre of current political debates and a clear understanding about the relevant considerations for developing effective long-term plans to address challenging and controversial public questions. Students are also expected to acquire advanced methodological competences to examine and assess empirical phenomena as well as consolidated familiarity with argumentative strategies.
Applying knowledge and understanding
Students are expected to be able to apply their acquired methodological and argumentative competences to interpret and evaluate political events or phenomena and to devise and defend policy or normative proposals that are sensitive to criteria of feasibility and effectiveness, on the one hand, and to value considerations, on the other.
Making judgment
At the end of the course, students are expected be able to formulate autonomous and rigorous judgments, based on accurate empirical analyses. Students are also expected to be able to autonomously and critically assess arguments proposed within public debates, to verify their logical consistency and their empirical reliability.
Communication
Students are expected to strengthen and refine their communicative skills, thanks to specific training in argumentative strategies and logics and to in-class discussions, which are specifically meant to provide students with opportunities for practicing and improve their communicative abilities.
Students are expected to acquire in-depth knowledge concerning some major issues at the centre of current political debates and a clear understanding about the relevant considerations for developing effective long-term plans to address challenging and controversial public questions. Students are also expected to acquire advanced methodological competences to examine and assess empirical phenomena as well as consolidated familiarity with argumentative strategies.
Applying knowledge and understanding
Students are expected to be able to apply their acquired methodological and argumentative competences to interpret and evaluate political events or phenomena and to devise and defend policy or normative proposals that are sensitive to criteria of feasibility and effectiveness, on the one hand, and to value considerations, on the other.
Making judgment
At the end of the course, students are expected be able to formulate autonomous and rigorous judgments, based on accurate empirical analyses. Students are also expected to be able to autonomously and critically assess arguments proposed within public debates, to verify their logical consistency and their empirical reliability.
Communication
Students are expected to strengthen and refine their communicative skills, thanks to specific training in argumentative strategies and logics and to in-class discussions, which are specifically meant to provide students with opportunities for practicing and improve their communicative abilities.
Lesson period: First trimester
Assessment methods: Esame
Assessment result: voto verbalizzato in trentesimi
Single course
This course can be attended as a single course.
Course syllabus and organization
Single session
Responsible
Lesson period
First trimester
Course syllabus
The course has an interdisciplinary character and it pursues three main learning objectives. First, the course aims at introducing students to major topics and themes animating ongoing public debates. Second, the course intends to familiarize students with methodological tools to critically interpret political or socio-economic phenomena, to analyze empirical data and to develop rigorous research designs in the field of social sciences and philosophy. Third, the course aims at offering students high-level training in logics and argumentative strategies, which will strengthen students' analytical capacities and their ability to assess and defend normative and policy proposals.
The course is composed of three modules:
The first module (Prof. Baccarini) deals with the topic of the role of scientific knowledge in democratic decision-making. The basic problem is represented by the uneasy possibility to obtain harmony between the principle of political equality that demands an equal voice for all citizens in public decision-making and the necessity to justify some public decisions through sophisticated knowledge that requires high expertise. The questions that are discussed regard legitimacy of public decisions in such situations; arguments in favour and against pure egalitarian democratic legitimacy; arguments in favour and against the legitimacy of attributing decision-making to experts; the possibility to reconcile the egalitarian and the expertistic demands; the accessibility of scientific reasons to the general population; actual cases.
The second module (Prof. Ronchi) consists of an introduction to the methodological approaches used in empirical research in social and political science. It shows how to draw consistent research designs and walks the students through the basics of the most widely used quantitative and qualitative methods.
The third module (Prof. Floris) aims at exploring the fundamental concepts of reasoning, decision theory, and their applications in navigating complex social dilemmas. It delves into the principles of rational decision-making, examines the dynamics of social dilemmas, and gains insight into the role of experts in shaping critical decisions.
The course is composed of three modules:
The first module (Prof. Baccarini) deals with the topic of the role of scientific knowledge in democratic decision-making. The basic problem is represented by the uneasy possibility to obtain harmony between the principle of political equality that demands an equal voice for all citizens in public decision-making and the necessity to justify some public decisions through sophisticated knowledge that requires high expertise. The questions that are discussed regard legitimacy of public decisions in such situations; arguments in favour and against pure egalitarian democratic legitimacy; arguments in favour and against the legitimacy of attributing decision-making to experts; the possibility to reconcile the egalitarian and the expertistic demands; the accessibility of scientific reasons to the general population; actual cases.
The second module (Prof. Ronchi) consists of an introduction to the methodological approaches used in empirical research in social and political science. It shows how to draw consistent research designs and walks the students through the basics of the most widely used quantitative and qualitative methods.
The third module (Prof. Floris) aims at exploring the fundamental concepts of reasoning, decision theory, and their applications in navigating complex social dilemmas. It delves into the principles of rational decision-making, examines the dynamics of social dilemmas, and gains insight into the role of experts in shaping critical decisions.
Prerequisites for admission
The course has no formal prerequisites.
Teaching methods
The course is composed of taught classes that actively involve students, as well as lessons in which students are required to pre-read an article and/or to present and discuss one in class.
Teaching Resources
Please refer to the Syllabus found on myAriel.
Here is the full reading list for the three modules:
* Module 1 (Baccarini) *
Quong, J. (2013/2017): Public Reason. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/public-reason/)
Jønch-Clausen, K., Kappel, K. (2016): Scientific Facts and Methods in Public Reason. Res Publica, 22(2). pp. 117-133.
Kappel, K. (2021): Science as Public Reason and the Controversiality Objection. Res Publica, 27 (4). pp. 619-639.
Reid, A. (2019): What Facts Should be Treated as 'Fixed' in Public Justification? Social Epistemology 33 (6). Pp. 491-502.
Anderson, E. (2011): Democracy, Public Reason and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony. Episteme, 8 (2). pp. 144-164.
Bellolio Badiola, C. (2018): Science and Public Reason. A Restatement. Res Publica, 24 (4). pp. 415-432.
Palmer, A. (2020): Scientific Facts in the Space of Public Reason: Moderate Idealization, Public Justification, and Vaccine Policy under Conditions of Widespread Misinformation and Conspiracism. pp. 1-10.
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=bgsu1605280915977124&disposition=inline
Biddle, J.; Kidd, I.; Leuschner, A. (2017): Epistemic Corruption and Manufactured Doubt. The Case of Climate Science. Public Affairs Quarterly, 31 (3). pp. 165-187.
Baccarini, E. (2023): The role of experts in public deliberations. A Rawlsian epistemically responsible democracy. Revue internationale de philosophie, 23 (2). 37-58
Samaržija, H & Cetovac, I. (2021): The institutional preconditions of epistemic justice. Epistemology, 35 (6). 621-635.
* Module 2 (Ronchi) *
Note: empirical article marked with "*" (these are texts are good subjects for class presentations and methodology-review essays)
- Module 2/Compulsory texts
Beach, D., and Pedersen, R. B. (2019). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. University of Michigan Press. (Chapters 1 and 2)
Della Porta, D., and Keating, M. (Eds.). (2008). Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective. Cambridge University Press. (chapters 1, 11 + selected chapters listed here under the authors' names)
De Vaus, D., 2001. Research design in social research. London: SAGE (chapter 1)
Franklin, Mark (2008). Quantitative analysis, In: Della Porta, D., and Keating, M. (Eds.) Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective. Cambridge University Press, 240-262.
George, Alexander L. And Andrew Bennett (2005): Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press. 73-124 (Chapter 4).
Héritier, Adrienne (2008). Causal explanation, In: Della Porta, D., and Keating, M. (Eds.) Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective. Cambridge University Press, 61-79.
King, Gary/Robert O. Keohane/Sidney Verba (1994): Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 3-34 (Chapter 1).
Mahoney, James and Gary Goertz (2006): A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research. In: Political Analysis 14(3). 227-49.
Mair, Peter (2008). 'Concepts and concept formation', In Della Porta, D., and Keating, M. (Eds.) Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective. Cambridge University Press, 177-197.
Ragin, Charles (1997): Turning the Tables: How Case-oriented Research Challenges Variable-oriented Research. Comparative Social Research, 16. 27-42.
Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual review of political science, 11.
Schmitter, P. C. (2016). The design of social and political research. Chinese political science review, 1(4), 577-609.
Sommer Harrits, G. (2011). More than method?: A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. Journal of mixed
methods research, 5(2), 150-166.
Steinmo, Sven (2008). 'Historical institutionalism', In Della Porta, D., and Keating, M. (Eds.) Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective. Cambridge University Press, 118-138.
- Module 2/Optional text (for students' presentations - empirical papers are marked with "*")
* Oana, I. E., Pellegata, A., and Wang, C. (2021). A cure worse than the disease? Exploring the health-economy trade-off during COVID-19. West European Politics, 1-26.
* Berton, F., Richiardi, M., and Sacchi, S. (2012). The political economy of work security and flexibility: Italy in comparative perspective. Policy Press. (Chapters 2 and 7)
* Bulfone, F., and Tassinari, A. (2020). Under pressure. Economic constraints, electoral politics and labour market reforms in Southern Europe in the decade of the Great Recession. European Journal of Political Research.
* Ferrera, M., Miró, J., & Ronchi, S. (2021). Walking the road together? EU polity maintenance during the COVID-19 crisis. West European Politics, 1-24
* Ferrera, M., Jessoula, M., and Fargion, V. (2013). At the roots of the Italian unbalanced welfare state: the grip of cognitive frames and "red-white" political competition. Working paper - Banca d'Italia-area ricerca economica e relazioni internazionali.
* Gerhards, J., Lengfeld, H., & Häuberer, J. (2016). Do European citizens support the idea of a European welfare state? Evidence from a comparative survey conducted in three EU member states. International Sociology, 31(6), 677-700.
* Gingrich, j. And Ansell, B. W. (2015). The dynamics of social investment: human capital, activation and care, In: Beramendi, P., Häusermann, S., Kitschelt, H., and Kriesi, H. (Eds.). (2015). The politics of advanced capitalism. Cambridge University Press, 282-304.
Levy, Jack S. (2008): Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science 25. 1-18.
* Natili, M., Negri, F., & Ronchi, S. (2021). Widening double dualisation? Labour market inequalities and national social policy responses in Western Europe during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, paper presented at ESPAnet Annual Conference, KU Leuven, 31 August - 3 September 2021.
* Ronchi, S., Natili, M., & Molteni, F. (2023). A European eco-social investment constituency? Unpacking public opinion towards EU green, social investment and social protection policies in 15 countries. Stato e mercato, 43(1), 105-136.
* Papadimitriou, D., Pegasiou, A., and Zartaloudis, S. (2019). European elites and the narrative of the Greek crisis: A discursive institutionalist analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 58(2), 435-464.
* Schimmelfennig, Frank (2001). The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetor-ical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union. International Organization 55(1). 47-80.
* Schizzerotto, A., Vergolini, L. & Zanini, N. (2014) "The Minimum Guaranteed Income in the Province of Trento: Evidence from an Impact Evaluation", IRVAPP working paper, November 2014.Heritier 2008_chapter-causal explanation
Seawright, J., and Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political research quarterly, 61(2), 294-308.
* Trampusch, Christine (2010). Employers, the State, and the Politics of Institutional Change. Vocational Education and Training in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. European Journal of Political Research 49(4). 545-73.
Van Kersbergen, K., and Vis, B. (2015). Three worlds' typology: Moving beyond normal science?. Journal of European Social Policy, 25(1), 111-123.
* Zhang, N., Andrighetto, G., Ottone, S., Ponzano, F., and Steinmo, S. (2016). " Willing to Pay?" Tax Compliance in Britain and Italy: An Experimental Analysis. PLoS One, 11(2).
* Module 3 (Floris) *
Baron, J. (2023). Thinking and deciding. Cambridge University Press. (Ch. 2, The study of thinking)
Greene, J. (2014). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. Penguin. (Ch. 1, The tragedy of the commons; Ch.2, Moral Machinery; Ch. 3, Strife on the new pasture)
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan. (Ch. 1, The Characters of a Story)
Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: a flaw in human judgment. Hachette UK. (Introduction)
Oreskes, N. (2019). Why trust science?. Princeton University Press. (Part II)
Pohl, R. (Ed.). (2004). Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory. Psychology Press. (Ch. 1, Conjunction fallacy; Ch, 2, Base rates in Bayesian inference; Ch. 4, Confirmation Bias)
Robson, D. (2019). The Intelligence Trap: Revolutionise Your Thinking and Make Wiser Decisions. Hachette UK. (Ch. 6, A bullshit detection kit)
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin. (Introduction; Ch. 5, Choice Architecture; Ch. 6, Prescription Drugs)
Here is the full reading list for the three modules:
* Module 1 (Baccarini) *
Quong, J. (2013/2017): Public Reason. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/public-reason/)
Jønch-Clausen, K., Kappel, K. (2016): Scientific Facts and Methods in Public Reason. Res Publica, 22(2). pp. 117-133.
Kappel, K. (2021): Science as Public Reason and the Controversiality Objection. Res Publica, 27 (4). pp. 619-639.
Reid, A. (2019): What Facts Should be Treated as 'Fixed' in Public Justification? Social Epistemology 33 (6). Pp. 491-502.
Anderson, E. (2011): Democracy, Public Reason and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony. Episteme, 8 (2). pp. 144-164.
Bellolio Badiola, C. (2018): Science and Public Reason. A Restatement. Res Publica, 24 (4). pp. 415-432.
Palmer, A. (2020): Scientific Facts in the Space of Public Reason: Moderate Idealization, Public Justification, and Vaccine Policy under Conditions of Widespread Misinformation and Conspiracism. pp. 1-10.
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=bgsu1605280915977124&disposition=inline
Biddle, J.; Kidd, I.; Leuschner, A. (2017): Epistemic Corruption and Manufactured Doubt. The Case of Climate Science. Public Affairs Quarterly, 31 (3). pp. 165-187.
Baccarini, E. (2023): The role of experts in public deliberations. A Rawlsian epistemically responsible democracy. Revue internationale de philosophie, 23 (2). 37-58
Samaržija, H & Cetovac, I. (2021): The institutional preconditions of epistemic justice. Epistemology, 35 (6). 621-635.
* Module 2 (Ronchi) *
Note: empirical article marked with "*" (these are texts are good subjects for class presentations and methodology-review essays)
- Module 2/Compulsory texts
Beach, D., and Pedersen, R. B. (2019). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. University of Michigan Press. (Chapters 1 and 2)
Della Porta, D., and Keating, M. (Eds.). (2008). Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective. Cambridge University Press. (chapters 1, 11 + selected chapters listed here under the authors' names)
De Vaus, D., 2001. Research design in social research. London: SAGE (chapter 1)
Franklin, Mark (2008). Quantitative analysis, In: Della Porta, D., and Keating, M. (Eds.) Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective. Cambridge University Press, 240-262.
George, Alexander L. And Andrew Bennett (2005): Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press. 73-124 (Chapter 4).
Héritier, Adrienne (2008). Causal explanation, In: Della Porta, D., and Keating, M. (Eds.) Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective. Cambridge University Press, 61-79.
King, Gary/Robert O. Keohane/Sidney Verba (1994): Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 3-34 (Chapter 1).
Mahoney, James and Gary Goertz (2006): A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research. In: Political Analysis 14(3). 227-49.
Mair, Peter (2008). 'Concepts and concept formation', In Della Porta, D., and Keating, M. (Eds.) Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective. Cambridge University Press, 177-197.
Ragin, Charles (1997): Turning the Tables: How Case-oriented Research Challenges Variable-oriented Research. Comparative Social Research, 16. 27-42.
Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual review of political science, 11.
Schmitter, P. C. (2016). The design of social and political research. Chinese political science review, 1(4), 577-609.
Sommer Harrits, G. (2011). More than method?: A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. Journal of mixed
methods research, 5(2), 150-166.
Steinmo, Sven (2008). 'Historical institutionalism', In Della Porta, D., and Keating, M. (Eds.) Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective. Cambridge University Press, 118-138.
- Module 2/Optional text (for students' presentations - empirical papers are marked with "*")
* Oana, I. E., Pellegata, A., and Wang, C. (2021). A cure worse than the disease? Exploring the health-economy trade-off during COVID-19. West European Politics, 1-26.
* Berton, F., Richiardi, M., and Sacchi, S. (2012). The political economy of work security and flexibility: Italy in comparative perspective. Policy Press. (Chapters 2 and 7)
* Bulfone, F., and Tassinari, A. (2020). Under pressure. Economic constraints, electoral politics and labour market reforms in Southern Europe in the decade of the Great Recession. European Journal of Political Research.
* Ferrera, M., Miró, J., & Ronchi, S. (2021). Walking the road together? EU polity maintenance during the COVID-19 crisis. West European Politics, 1-24
* Ferrera, M., Jessoula, M., and Fargion, V. (2013). At the roots of the Italian unbalanced welfare state: the grip of cognitive frames and "red-white" political competition. Working paper - Banca d'Italia-area ricerca economica e relazioni internazionali.
* Gerhards, J., Lengfeld, H., & Häuberer, J. (2016). Do European citizens support the idea of a European welfare state? Evidence from a comparative survey conducted in three EU member states. International Sociology, 31(6), 677-700.
* Gingrich, j. And Ansell, B. W. (2015). The dynamics of social investment: human capital, activation and care, In: Beramendi, P., Häusermann, S., Kitschelt, H., and Kriesi, H. (Eds.). (2015). The politics of advanced capitalism. Cambridge University Press, 282-304.
Levy, Jack S. (2008): Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science 25. 1-18.
* Natili, M., Negri, F., & Ronchi, S. (2021). Widening double dualisation? Labour market inequalities and national social policy responses in Western Europe during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, paper presented at ESPAnet Annual Conference, KU Leuven, 31 August - 3 September 2021.
* Ronchi, S., Natili, M., & Molteni, F. (2023). A European eco-social investment constituency? Unpacking public opinion towards EU green, social investment and social protection policies in 15 countries. Stato e mercato, 43(1), 105-136.
* Papadimitriou, D., Pegasiou, A., and Zartaloudis, S. (2019). European elites and the narrative of the Greek crisis: A discursive institutionalist analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 58(2), 435-464.
* Schimmelfennig, Frank (2001). The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetor-ical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union. International Organization 55(1). 47-80.
* Schizzerotto, A., Vergolini, L. & Zanini, N. (2014) "The Minimum Guaranteed Income in the Province of Trento: Evidence from an Impact Evaluation", IRVAPP working paper, November 2014.Heritier 2008_chapter-causal explanation
Seawright, J., and Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political research quarterly, 61(2), 294-308.
* Trampusch, Christine (2010). Employers, the State, and the Politics of Institutional Change. Vocational Education and Training in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. European Journal of Political Research 49(4). 545-73.
Van Kersbergen, K., and Vis, B. (2015). Three worlds' typology: Moving beyond normal science?. Journal of European Social Policy, 25(1), 111-123.
* Zhang, N., Andrighetto, G., Ottone, S., Ponzano, F., and Steinmo, S. (2016). " Willing to Pay?" Tax Compliance in Britain and Italy: An Experimental Analysis. PLoS One, 11(2).
* Module 3 (Floris) *
Baron, J. (2023). Thinking and deciding. Cambridge University Press. (Ch. 2, The study of thinking)
Greene, J. (2014). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. Penguin. (Ch. 1, The tragedy of the commons; Ch.2, Moral Machinery; Ch. 3, Strife on the new pasture)
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan. (Ch. 1, The Characters of a Story)
Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: a flaw in human judgment. Hachette UK. (Introduction)
Oreskes, N. (2019). Why trust science?. Princeton University Press. (Part II)
Pohl, R. (Ed.). (2004). Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory. Psychology Press. (Ch. 1, Conjunction fallacy; Ch, 2, Base rates in Bayesian inference; Ch. 4, Confirmation Bias)
Robson, D. (2019). The Intelligence Trap: Revolutionise Your Thinking and Make Wiser Decisions. Hachette UK. (Ch. 6, A bullshit detection kit)
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin. (Introduction; Ch. 5, Choice Architecture; Ch. 6, Prescription Drugs)
Assessment methods and Criteria
* Attending students (studenti frequentanti) *
Each module counts 33% towards the calculus of the final grade. The final grade is the rounded average of the three modules' grades.
- Module 1 (33%)
(Prof. Baccarini): Attending students can either give a class presentation or submit a 1000-word review paper to Prof. Baccarini, at least 1 week before the official date of the exam in order to allow time for grading.
- Module 2 (33%)
(Prof. Ronchi): Attending students can either give a class presentation or submit a 1000-word review paper to Prof. Ronchi, at least 1 week before the official date of the exam in order to allow time for grading.
- Module 3 (33%)
(Prof. Floris): Attending students are expected to submit a 1000-word review paper to Prof. Floris at least 1 week before the official date of the exam in order to allow time for grading.
* Non-attending students (studenti non frequentanti) *
Each module counts 33% towards the calculus of the final grade. The final grade is the rounded average of the three modules' grades.
Non-attending students need to follow all three following steps:
- Module 1 (33%)
(Prof. Baccarini): Non-attending students must submit 1500-word (max) review paper based on selected readings from Module 3 to Prof. Baccarini, at least a week before the official exam date in order to allow time for grading. Please get in contact with the professor to ask for information or about possible topics and/or further readings.
- Module 2 (33%)
(Prof. Ronchi): Non-attending students must submit 1500-word (max) review paper based on selected readings from Module 1 to Prof. Ronchi, at least a week before the official exam date in order to allow time for grading. Please check the essay guidelines on "MyAriel/Governing_the_future/Course material/Module 2" or get in contact with the professor to ask for information or about possible topics and/or further readings.
- Module 3 (33%)
(Prof. Floris): Non-attending students must submit 1500-word (max) review paper based on selected readings from Module 3 to Prof. Floris, at least a week before the official exam date in order to allow time for grading. Please get in contact with the professor to ask for information or about possible topics and/or further readings.
Each module counts 33% towards the calculus of the final grade. The final grade is the rounded average of the three modules' grades.
- Module 1 (33%)
(Prof. Baccarini): Attending students can either give a class presentation or submit a 1000-word review paper to Prof. Baccarini, at least 1 week before the official date of the exam in order to allow time for grading.
- Module 2 (33%)
(Prof. Ronchi): Attending students can either give a class presentation or submit a 1000-word review paper to Prof. Ronchi, at least 1 week before the official date of the exam in order to allow time for grading.
- Module 3 (33%)
(Prof. Floris): Attending students are expected to submit a 1000-word review paper to Prof. Floris at least 1 week before the official date of the exam in order to allow time for grading.
* Non-attending students (studenti non frequentanti) *
Each module counts 33% towards the calculus of the final grade. The final grade is the rounded average of the three modules' grades.
Non-attending students need to follow all three following steps:
- Module 1 (33%)
(Prof. Baccarini): Non-attending students must submit 1500-word (max) review paper based on selected readings from Module 3 to Prof. Baccarini, at least a week before the official exam date in order to allow time for grading. Please get in contact with the professor to ask for information or about possible topics and/or further readings.
- Module 2 (33%)
(Prof. Ronchi): Non-attending students must submit 1500-word (max) review paper based on selected readings from Module 1 to Prof. Ronchi, at least a week before the official exam date in order to allow time for grading. Please check the essay guidelines on "MyAriel/Governing_the_future/Course material/Module 2" or get in contact with the professor to ask for information or about possible topics and/or further readings.
- Module 3 (33%)
(Prof. Floris): Non-attending students must submit 1500-word (max) review paper based on selected readings from Module 3 to Prof. Floris, at least a week before the official exam date in order to allow time for grading. Please get in contact with the professor to ask for information or about possible topics and/or further readings.
SPS/04 - POLITICAL SCIENCE - University credits: 9
Lessons: 60 hours
Professors:
Baccarini Elvio, Floris Mara, Ronchi Stefano
Educational website(s)
Professor(s)