Due before Session B · Submit via Canvas Assignment
The Capstone Declaration is not a polished proposal. It is a snapshot of your thinking at the beginning of Week 3 — where you currently stand on format, collaboration, and the question you are beginning to develop. You will revise all of this. What matters here is that you commit to a direction clearly enough that your Stakeholder Map in Session B has something concrete to organize around.
The course offers two standard capstone formats and one open pathway for students with a clear alternative vision. All three pathways share the same commitments: rigorous analysis, a global dimension, public circulation under Creative Commons, and work that is genuinely useful to an audience beyond this classroom. The format is in service of those goals — not an end in itself.
The declaration has three parts. Each is short. Respond to all three before Session B.
◆ Capstone Milestone · Week 3
Submit your Capstone Declaration before Session B this week.
Your Stakeholder Map — the second Capstone Milestone — is due separately before Week 4 Session A. See the Week 3 Module Overview for details.
What This Assignment Is and Is Not
Is: A working declaration of your current direction — honest, specific, and provisional. You are not locked in. Declaring something clearly now is what allows the course's feedback loops (peer review, instructor notes, Stakeholder Map critique) to actually help you.
Is not: A finished proposal, a literature review, or a guarantee of what your final project will look like. Vagueness is not humility — it just makes the next milestone harder. Be as specific as you can be right now.
Part 1 · Team Status and Format
Declare your working status and your current capstone format preference. Both can change — but both need to be named now so your team (if you have one) can begin the Stakeholder Map together in Session B.
| Declare | What to include |
|---|---|
| Working solo or in a team | If working in a team, list your teammates by name. If working solo, say so explicitly. If you are still deciding, say that — and name one person you are considering working with. |
| Capstone format | Choose from the three pathways below. If you are considering Pathway 3, name your format idea here — even roughly — and include the short pitch described in that pathway's entry. If genuinely undecided, describe what is pulling you in each direction. |
The Three Format Pathways
All three pathways share the same core requirements: rigorous analysis grounded in course frameworks, a global or comparative dimension, public circulation under Creative Commons, and work that is genuinely useful to an audience beyond this classroom. The format is in service of those commitments — not an end in itself.
Pathway 1 · Standard
Global Case Study Comparison
A comparative analytical paper examining how an AI system, policy, or governance framework operates across two or more national, regional, or linguistic contexts. Analyzes how values, institutions, and historical conditions produce different outcomes. Deposited in the UO Library Scholars Bank under Creative Commons license.
Well suited for: Students interested in research writing, policy analysis, or global studies — including those developing work that could evolve into an honors thesis, a publication submission, or a graduate school writing sample.
Pathway 2 · Standard
Public Awareness / Education Campaign
A public-facing project — social media series, digital exhibit, educational resource, or multimedia campaign — communicating key issues about AI, power, and accountability to a broader public audience. Deployed under Creative Commons license in the social media sphere or other public channels.
Well suited for: Students interested in communications, journalism, design, education, or advocacy — including those building a portfolio piece that demonstrates public-facing analysis and storytelling to future employers or graduate programs.
Pathway 3 · Open Format — Instructor Approval Required
Open Format: Inherited Projects and Original Pitches
Pathway 3 is for students whose analytical goals call for something beyond the two standard tracks. It has three sub-options — two are inherited projects with real documents and real stakes waiting for you; one is an original pitch you design yourself. All three require an approval conversation before you declare.
| Sub-option | What you do |
|---|---|
| 3A — Legislative Imagination AADCSA Multi-Cohort Project | You inherit a draft model federal AI bill and serve as adversarial analyst — finding where it breaks and passing your findings to the next cohort via a structured contribution template. |
| 3B — Community AI Ethics Montubio Case Study | You inherit curated documents from a real suspended AI project with Montubio community leaders in Ecuador. You analyze the project's design and ethics, then propose what responsible continuation — or responsible suspension — would require. |
| 3C — Original Pitch Design Your Own | You propose a format not covered by Pathways 1 or 2 — longform essay, policy brief, podcast, data art, community toolkit, or something else entirely — and make the case for why it belongs in this course's public knowledge commitment. |
All three sub-options share the same core requirements as the standard pathways: rigorous analysis grounded in course frameworks, a global or comparative dimension, a concrete public output, and Creative Commons licensing.
If declaring Pathway 3: Include a brief pitch in your declaration (3–5 sentences) naming your sub-option and answering: What is the format or project? What is your role? And why does this serve your analytical goals better than Pathways 1 or 2? For 3A and 3B, name the specific inherited project and what friction zone or framework you plan to lead with.
Instructor approval required before Week 5. See the Pathway 3 page for full descriptions and document access. You will receive feedback by the end of Week 3 or early Week 4.
Part 2 · Topic and Context
Describe the AI system, context, or problem you are currently planning to investigate. Be as specific as you can — "AI and healthcare" is too broad; "algorithmic triage systems in under-resourced hospitals in Brazil and the United States" is a direction you can map stakeholders around.
Respond to the following prompts in a short paragraph (3–5 sentences is enough):
| a | What is the AI system or context you are investigating? Name it as specifically as you can. What does it do? Who deploys it? Where does it operate? |
| b | What drew you to this topic? A reading, a personal experience, a question from the course. The origin of your interest is relevant — it often points toward the ethical stake that will drive the project. |
| c | What is the global or comparative dimension? This course is rooted in the Schnitzer School of Global Studies. Every capstone project must engage a cross-national, cross-regional, or cross-cultural dimension. Name it — even if it is not yet fully developed. |
Part 3 · Your Driving Question
A driving question is the question that makes your project necessary. It is not a topic sentence or a thesis — it is the question your project exists to answer, the one that keeps pulling you forward even when the research gets difficult. A strong driving question is specific, researchable, and carries an ethical stake.
This week, you are applying the interrogation and deconstruction techniques introduced in the course to begin sharpening your question. Use the scaffolded prompts below to develop and test it.
Draft your question
Write your current driving question as directly as you can. It may be rough. It may be too broad. Write it anyway.
Sentence starter: "My current driving question is: ___"
Apply the Four-Question Framework
Run your driving question through the course's analytical framework. Which of the four questions is your driving question most closely aligned with? Which of the four questions does it leave unasked — and should it?
Sentence starter: "My question is most directly asking about [benefit and cost / intelligence / displacement / accountability], because ___. The question I am not yet asking — but may need to — is ___."
Name the assumption
Every driving question contains at least one assumption about who matters, what counts as a problem, or what a good outcome would look like. Name one assumption embedded in your current question — and say whether you want to interrogate it or build on it.
Sentence starter: "One assumption my question makes is ___. I want to [interrogate / build on] this assumption because ___."
Who is absent?
Return to Hassan's most important question: who is absent from the frame? As your driving question is currently written, whose perspective is not represented — and what would your question look like if you centered that perspective instead?
Sentence starter: "As currently written, my question centers ___. The perspective that is absent or underrepresented is ___. If I centered that perspective, my question might become: ___."
Length and Submission
| Total length | Approximately 300–500 words across all three parts. This is a working document — precision matters more than length. |
| Format | Plain prose or labeled sections — whatever makes your thinking clearest. No special formatting required. |
| Where to submit | Canvas Assignment submission — Capstone Declaration (Week 3). Due before Session B. |
| Grading | Completion credit. The declaration is evaluated on specificity and engagement — not on the quality of the question itself. A rough, honest declaration earns full credit. A vague one does not. |
| Team submissions | Each team member submits individually — but teams should discuss Parts 2 and 3 together before submitting. Your driving questions do not have to be identical, but they should be compatible. |
What Comes Next
Your Capstone Declaration feeds directly into your Stakeholder Map, which you begin in Session B and complete before Week 4 Session A. The driving question you draft here is the organizing question for the map — your stakeholders are the actors in the system your question is about.
Formal capstone proposals are not due until Week 7. The work you do now — declaring a direction, mapping stakeholders, receiving peer feedback — is the foundation that makes that proposal possible. Nothing here is final. Everything here matters.