You should write a research proposal analyzing a communication law/policy problem, in this case ACCOUNTABILITY.
Which technical measures do select respondents to the European Commission consultation on measures to further improve the effectiveness of the fight against illegal content online deem acceptable? Would these measures require a shift in the current liability/accountability scheme for technical intermediaries?
(cf : https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-measures-further-improve-effectiveness-fight-against-illegal-content-online_en)
I expect that the summary report from the European Commission, as well as the responses to the consultation, will be posted very soon. I recommend that you have a closer look at the questions that were asked in the consultation, as well as read the recommendation and communication that preceded the consultation.
The first question is descriptive, but allows you to focus on analyzing specific questions within the consultation. The second question is analytical and would link to a discussion on liability/accountability of technical intermediaries (have a look at the academic/policy discussions on Articles 12-15 of the E-Commerce Directive). The point is that a lot of measures that social platforms and search engines are requested to take nowadays shift away from a reactive approach to illegal content.
PLEASE MAKE SURE TO MEET “GRADING CRITERIA” IN ADDITIONAL MATERIALS. Moreover, please use some (but not only) academic arguments/references of the following academic papers’ sections to strengthen the research proposal ;
a)Plaisance, P. (2014). Media Ethics: Key Principles for Responsible Practice. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Chapter 5: Transparency (pp. 71-96).
b)Christians, C., Fackler, M., Brittain Richardson, K. Kreshel, P. &Woods, R.(2016).Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning. 10thedition. New York: Routledge.Case 11 Covering the Middle East (pp. 87-91).
c)Christians, C., Fackler, M., Brittain Richardson, K. Kreshel, P. &Woods, R.(2016).Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning. 10thedition. New York: Routledge.Case 27 Altering Images: Attaining the Unattainable (pp. 183-187).
1) Introduction : Includes a brief explanation of the choice of topic, the context of topic within the academic debate, the gaps in the literature that the paper is addressing / filling, a clear and concise research question / research statement, and an outline of the structure of the paper.
2) Literature Review : Identifies the relevant (i.e. to the chosen topic) arguments and debates in the literature and places the student’s own topic in the wider academic context. The literature review compares, contrasts and synthesizes the main authors and arguments. It also evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the literature, and identifies the gaps that the paper addresses. Based on the literature review, chooses a clear theoretical/conceptual framework to be applied in the analysis section of the paper.
3) Methodology : Presents the methodology applied in the research; the rationale for case selection; the data to be analyzed (focus mainly on the EU consultation : https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-measures-further-improve-effectiveness-fight-against-illegal-content-online_en).
This section should address the following questions:
-Why was a particular methodology selected?
-What units of analysis does the design include?
-How does the design connect to the theoretical framework& concepts?
-What are the strengths and weaknesses of the chosen method(s)?
4) Bibliography : Should include clear documentation of sources,using the referencing style APA. Your extended research proposalshould include 5-7 peer reviewed academic references.