Write a 20-page rhetorical criticism paper based off of my rhetorical analysis worksheet. A finished rhetorical criticism following the course prompt has ten sections. The lengths below are guideline
Doing Rhetorical Criticism Page | 6
Writing the Rhetorical Criticism
Goal: Complete a rhetorical criticism of the rhetorical artifact or artifacts of your choice. The general content of a rhetorical criticism as identified by Sonja Foss’ (2004)1 book are as follows: Introduction, Description of the Artifact, Description of the Rhetorical Method used, Report of the Findings of Your Analysis, and Contribution to Rhetorical Theory. While there is not a separate “Literature Review” listed in her book, in your Introduction and the Description of the Critical Method you should refer to a substantial body of relevant sources. Throughout the chapters I’ve uploaded online there are examples of finished rhetorical criticisms you can use as models, and you should also see other examples as you do the library research for your criticism.
Here are the basic parts of your analysis:
1. Title page (on separate page)
2. Abstract (on separate page)
Should be about one page or less
Should be a concise summary of entire criticism, including:
Why the study is important
A summary of what is known about the subject
What the critical method is and how it is used
A summary of the findings of your criticism
The abstract does not include evidence and reasoning; save that for the body of the paper.
However, you do not write the abstract until your complete paper is submitted.
3. Introduction (approximately 2 to 3 pages)
Title of the project centered at the top of the page (level 1 heading).
Attention getting opening.
Argument that the artifact(s) being studied is significant. This argument should include documentation and source citations.
5. Research Question(s)
Research questions tend to be about four basic components of the communication process:
a. Rhetor – Some research questions deal with the relationship between rhetors and their rhetoric. Questions that focus on the rhetor might be concerned with the motive of the rhetor, the worldview of the rhetor, or how the rhetoric functions for the rhetor. “How do cowboy references function in the rhetoric of organizational spokespeople?” is a research question that has the rhetor as a focus.
b. Audience – Some research questions are concerned with the relationship between an artifact and an audience. Although rhetorical criticism does not allow you to answer questions about the actual effects of rhetoric on an audience, you can ask questions about the kind of audience an artifact constructs as its preferred audience or how an artifact functions to facilitate the development of certain values or beliefs in an audience. A research question centered on audience is: “What is the idea audience constructed by and for specific organizational policies?”
c. Situation – Other research questions deal with the relationship between an artifact and the situation or context in which the artifact is embedded. Such questions might deal with the impact of a situation on an artifact, the rhetor’s definition of a situation in an artifact, or whether the artifact adequately addresses an exigence (a case or situation that demands prompt action or remedy; emergency) in a particular situation. Rhetorical questions in which situation is central are: “How do organizational leaders define exigencies following organizational crises?” or “What is the impact of those definitions of exigence on perceptions of the crisis?”
d. Message – Most research questions in rhetorical criticism deal with the message. The focus here is on the specific features of the artifact that enable it to function in particular ways. Such questions might deal with the kinds of arguments constructed, the types of metaphors used, the key terms used, or a combination of rhetorical strategies and characteristics that create a particular kind of artifact. Research questions that focus on message are questions such as: “What are the features of effective organizational apologies?” or “How does rhetoric generate support for organizational propositions that are contrary to organizational culture norms?”
Three Mistakes to Avoid when Choosing Research Questions
a. Making your question too broad and generic (e.g., “How does organizational rhetoric about employees function?”
b. Avoid wording your question that is too easily answered (e.g., yes/no questions or questions that start with the word “do” – “Do organizational leaders justify unpopular decisions?”)
c. Do not include your specific artifact within your basic research question (unless doing ideological criticism). As a whole, your question should be larger and more important than any single artifact.
5. Literature Review about the Artifact
Rhetorical criticisms being with a literature reviews that should be longer, more specific, and more detailed than those you usually find in journal articles or in Foss’ text. You should refer to a variety of sources, both academic and popular press, to summarize what has already been said about the artifact you choose.
Include summaries of research studies done on the subject.
The research studies do not all need to use critical methodology or be found in communication journals, but several of them should.
Each summary should include the following
Who did the study?
What kind of study it was (descriptive, experimental, historical, critical, field study, intensive interviewing)?
How the study was conducted?
What the study found?
What the implications for your study are? If you have multiple studies related to the same idea you should group them together for this part, but parts 1-4 should be separate.
6. Description of the artifact and context of the rhetoric.
The description of the artifact tells the reader what the rhetorical artifact is, the ideas contained in it, and the characteristics of how those ideas are expressed. The exact nature of the description depends on the artifact(s) you choose to analyze, but it is never acceptable to simply reprint the artifact either in this section or as an appendix. Your responsibility, as the critic, is to describe the artifact(s) clearly, accurately, and vividly. You should include several quotations or description.
The context of the rhetoric describes the historical and social circumstances that lead to the rhetoric. It is up to you to decide what is and is not relevant, but you must develop this, and refer to appropriate sources as you do it.
Depending on what you have to say you might develop all of this in two sections, or you could combine them in the same section.
7. Literature Review about the Critical Method/ Method
In this section you should discuss the background of the method and other studies that have used the method (what they looked at and what they found). You should summarize several journal articles in the same way explained for section 6 above. Part of your purpose is to demonstrate full understanding of the critical method while laying the groundwork for applying the unit of analysis to the artifact later in your paper. When you do this part you can reference the Foss textbook chapters (see below for the Foss reference), however you should also include references to other sources related to your method.
In this section you should discuss the background of the method and other studies that have used the method (what they looked at and what they found). You should summarize several journal articles in the same way explained for section 6 above.
8. Report of the finding of your analysis (apply the unit of analysis to the artifact).
This should be the largest part of your paper, unless you developed your literature reviews extensively.
Tell what you discovered from an application of the method of criticism to the artifact and provide support for your discoveries from the data of the artifact. Each rhetorical criticism method will have unique features, so please make sure you clearly apply the theory.
Bring in relevant literature as you explain your findings to elaborate on or extend your ideas. Be sure that you feature your ideas in your analysis section, making the thesis statements of your paragraphs about your ideas and not echoes of the ideas of others. Any theories or concepts you believe are relevant to your analysis should be used to support, elaborate on, and extend your ideas rather than letting the ideas of others subsume you.
9. Discussion of the contribution the analysis makes to answering the research question and/or rhetorical theory.
Your essay ends with a discussion of the contribution your analysis makes to rhetorical theory. Basically, your contribution to theory is the answer you derive to your research question based on your rhetorical analysis.
At this point in your paper, move away from your specific artifact and answer your research question more generally and abstractly. Trancsend the specific data of your artifact to focus on the rhetorical processes with which you are concerned. Suggest to your readers how your analysis of your artifact provides an answer to the larger issue with which your essay is concerned, discussing implications or significance of the contribution you mentioned in the introduction.
Typically this is done in one of two ways:
a. Identifying new concepts
● Concepts are the components, elements, or variables the theory is about.
● The concepts tell what you are looking at and what you consider important.
b. Identifying new relationships among concepts:
● Statements of relationships are explanations about how the concepts are related to one another.
● They identify patterns in the relationships among variables or concepts, and they tell how concepts are connected.
● Example – One rhetorical theory concerning the process of credibility suggests that, to be credible, a rhetor must demonstrate intelligence, moral character, and goodwill toward the audience. The concepts of the theory are intelligence, moral character, and good will, and the theory posits that all three of these concepts, interacting tougher and displayed in an artifact itself, contribute to an audience’s perception that the rhetor is credible; this is a statement of a relationship. Your analysis can contribute to rhetorical theory, then, by identifying important concepts in a rhetorical process or by suggesting how concepts relate to one another or both.
The contribution to answering your research question should not have that problem and I expect it will be a clear, strong argument.
10. References (start on separate page).
Reference
Foss, S. K. (2004). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration & practice (3rd ed.). Lake Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
1 Portions of this document were taken from the Foss text for explanatory purposes.
