Unit II: Proof – Argument – Literacy
Project 2: Rhetorical Analysis Webtext
- warm-up exercises:
- Annotated Bibliography due 21-Feb (in D2L)
- Rhetorical Analysis exercise due Sat 27-Feb
Week 7
M 22-Feb Activity: Rhetorical Analysis of selected article/source (from A-Bib)
- focus: generating insights and ideas for Project 2 through analysis
→ see guide PDF & page @ Silva Rhetoricae
*use article from A-Bib, or choose another for exercise
- discuss: stages/steps, process, timeline for Project
→ beginning with analyzing one scholarly article for observations & ideas
- continued topics: identifying & defining defining Information, Knowledge, Expertise, “Research,” Argument, Evidence/Proof in field/discipline
→ “discourse communities” & rhetorical/written conventions
W 24-Feb hybrid work :
- start article analysis before Wednesday class-time
- online discussion thread (comment & reply)
— see prompts below
→ continue “step 1” of rhetorical analysis through/for Friday…
F 26-Feb Activity: Exercise warm-up
- review/discuss: Rhetorical Analysis objectives and strategies
→ transition from ideas from analysis to presenting critical points for response (group/connect topically, with concise examples and framing language).
plus, if time: identifying types of argument - progress toward project: discuss observations about conventions, discourse community, type/s of knowledge, and “information paradigm” (worldview)…
- Post on your blog or in D2L
- Instructions Page
- Brief comment (due 12:30pm):
to show you’ve begun process, post an initial idea from analysis about one or more (if connected) rhetorical category — commentary, initial observation critical point, etc. about the article.
Also note a category/aspect of the article that is less obvious or readily analyzed using our approach
→ and/or one of the key objectives (beyond the rhetorical components) that this category/observation could help you address, in exercise / project.
- *note: you might also mention any of the rhetorical categories or key objectives that still seem difficult to discuss using this example (or the entire article) — as question, request for feedback, or just note for what to work on through Friday.
- Classmate reply (due 1:00pm):
in productive response, remark upon the rhetorical category idea and its relation to our key questions/objectives (if you are comfortable providing feedback; alternatively, just discuss your approach on this issue so far).
And/Or, respond to specific question/concern by referencing a resource you’ve consulted: assignment page, external sites linked/provided, or any others you’ve looked into (provide link if possible!)
Alternatively, perhaps discuss a different aspect/angle that you’ve looked into, which might relate — for instance, specialized information/concepts, discourse communities, types of argument or “reasoning”, etc.
- note: As we discussed in class, this should be a bit more than just a “status update,” with both an initial idea to share as well as productive discussion with classmate — perhaps with a reminder (reference assignment objectives) or a helpful resource you’ve consulted, specific suggestion/idea.
- In either post or comment, feel free to pose questions (or requests for clarification) about specific parts of the assignment (reference the prompt) — whether “step 1” (analyzing and generating notes) or “step 2” (presenting your critical points thoughtfully and efficiently in written response)
» due (27-Feb) Exercise 3: Rhetorical Analysis (of 1 scholarly article)
» Begin step 1 of Rhetorical Analysis — examining, annotating, generating notes on chosen scholarly article using any/all key categories.
→ this is essential for participating in Wednesday activity…
(required as attendance & participation)
» W 24-Feb Discussion — in comments below
Specialized Discourse
Beginning my research I have learned that in advertising, qualitative research is just as important as quantitative. I have also discovered that people in my field will not pose a hypothesis they have dissected without proving, extensively, why it works. Lastly, I have found many patterns and repetition within the article as it relates to information that I believe shows off expertise of the subject.
I’m going to post a link to my article; it’s about quantum reality. If you could post a link to yours, that would be great. We can compare the language cues and patterns in these vastly different fields and it will likely help with both of our analyses. I would suggest reading the PDF because the web text doesn’t translate the symbology used within the article.
http://0-link.springer.com.libraries.colorado.edu/article/10.1007%2Fs10992-013‑9274-6
can you send me your email, it will work better
I think that is really interesting in my field (International Affairs) researchers only mention theories and laws that aid their discussion. You can disprove many cases, even without not knowing that much background information, even as a student. But as IA looks at a much of different disciplines there is never just one answer to the way you can approach a situation to problem. It is interesting to look at the different dimensions of expertise of both of our disciplines.
I learned that in my major of communication, qualitative research is highly supported by surveys and data which is then thoroughly analyzed; then written in a very detailed form of formal writing such as: journal article, essay, etc.
I think it is interesting in the way researchers choose to legitimize information through graphs and other forms of data. I am curious to know if journal articles about comm include examples.
The article I chose jumps straight into assumed common terminology, such as “anhomomorphic logic”, “coevents”, and “reality filters”. As well, it is stated outright that the article will “summarize a recent search for quantum reality” and will state “various general results”. So, this sets a sort of “you better know a whole bunch of stuff about this subject before reading this because we’re going to move quickly” tone. This will help me address the formality of the language used and the presumptions made within the language in such articles.
I think you should have a glossary section for your assignment or footnotes to define some of the terminology you mentioned above. It will be really interesting how you will explain how language is used to acquire knowledge and such information within this subject. Also, try to define what quantum reality is- in your own words and analyzation.
The article that I have chosen does not assume you are from the field but it would be a given that if you were reading this topic in specifically, you would have some interest or some knowledge about one of the interdisciplinary topic in International Affairs. There are a lot of components to this article such as a case study, quantitive data, and qualitative data. As I have read and taken notes on this article, this aspects that I have briefly mentioned will allow me to address elements of credible research and evidence, as well as discussing discourse communities.
The article I have looked at uses terminology specific to economics and political science. Most of the jargon used in these fields is easily translated to a common reader, however, terms like ” Return to Scale” are less understood by common readers. The overall concept or purpose of the paper is simple: to provide reoccurring traps (hindrances of development) that occur across developing countries. Presented in a formal way, the argument is claims backed by example stacked upon more claims backed by examples or reference.
http://cddrl.fsi.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/176.theviolence.pdf
My article focuses on the same subjects and uses similar jargon. After looking over your article I noticed many of the same terms were used although mine moved more towards terms used when discussing GDP. My article differed however in that there is one main claim backed by several examples and sets of data.
The economic journal article that I chose is very clearly directed towards others in the field. I noticed early on that it fallowed a similar structure to the scientific method, as the authors introduced the topic, shared their opinions (hypothesis), showed the data they used, and demonstrated the economic models and equations used to draw their conclusion. This is odd because Economics is more of a social/political science. It is interesting to note however that the authors leave their conclusion as more of a suggestion, likely because trends in economics are notoriously difficult to quantify and predict.
I’m interested in the tone of the article. I feel like an economist can either be pessimistic or optimistic towards a certain element of the economy and that tone is most likely reflected in his/her word choice and the overall emotion the author puts into the article.
When going further detailed into my articles and research, I have found that in the field of Public health–especially in epidemiology, there are many trend that link similar article of the same nature together. I have found that quantitative research is very important in portraying information and knowledge, as the use of statistics indicate different prevalence and incidence rates. In my field, I find it common for people to build off of hypothesis–for example, lead poisoning as an exposure to cancer, there will be further exposure hypothesis for the same illness, perhaps smoking or mercury poisoning and so forth.
As a physics major, I’m also familiar with quantitative reasoning being important. Perhaps it would be useful to look into what constitutes quantitative proof in your discipline, as a matter of convention. I mentioned in my post that in my article they discuss a “5.1-sigma uncertainty.” In modern physics 5-sigma is generally considered the cutoff for acceptable measurement uncertainty. Any data which has less than 5-sigma uncertainty, assuming the procedure was carried out appropriately, is considered valid. You might find that there is no such convention, which would also be interesting.
My emphasis in Strategic communication is Advertising and I found a new article to examine. The structure of this article and many others in the field relies on data to back up the claims being made in the article and the intended audience is professionals in the industry. There is a sense that it would benefit us advertisers if the general public was not aware of our practices because the more consumers know about our intentions the less they will be affected by the ads and less likely to buy into the message of the ad.
I like the understanding of the inference, but I feel like that is going to be a hard point to tie into a narrative about how communication in your field unfolds. If you have been analyzing multiple articles and they all have an exclusive undertone to them, it may be that your field intentionally tries to confound the point of the article in order to keep non-advertisers out, but unless you can make that direct tie, I would hesitate to base your analysis off the explicit content of the article and focus more on how the article as a whole reflects what your field is trying to communicate.
My article focuses on the outlining of the production and evaluation of a new pharmaceutical drug and discusses in detail the steps taken to evaluate the effectiveness and to produce the chemical so that it may be replicated by other researchers in order to validate the theory. There is a precedent in my field that in order to verify a synthesis of a new chemical, the procedural steps in order to produce the molecule must be clearly outlined and detailed, with any errors, slip-ups, or miscalculations noted and hypothesized upon. This generally outlines the nature of articles and resources in my field, because at the end of the day the primary goal of a biochemist is to be able to replicate a discovery in order to mass produce a product or evaluate an outcome.
Hello everyone. I will be using the article from LIGO (Laser Interferometer-Gravitational Wave Observatory) that I mentioned briefly in class.
I’ve noticed several conventions of communication within the physics community. First, as Kyle mentioned, in physics journals, books, and articles it is assumed you are familiar with the language of physics. For example, in the article I’ve chosen (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102) it is assumed you know what a “5.1-sigma uncertainty” is. If you’re involved in the mathematical sciences you may be familiar with this language (standard deviations, chi-squared, etc.).
Second, I found that it is common to begin any physics publication with some motivation. In multiple articles, including the one I’m using, it begins with a historical discussion of the subject at hand and the relevant physical theories or predictions.
Third, and this is the point I’ve found especially interesting and perhaps not mentioned in our analytical tools, physics publications always — without exception — contain pictures. If you have a physics homework assignment, there is most definitely a picture or two on it. If you have a physics textbook, it is most definitely loaded with pictures. If you take a look at this LIGO article, there are pictures. When you think of physics, you think of pictures don’t you? An atomic model? “E = mc^2” written on a chalkboard? Space? Einstein’s goofy haircut, perhaps? You get the idea. Physics is so intrinsically connected to pictures of the physical world that it is absolutely essential to communicate with efficient use of pictures. I think in all of my analysis of rhetoric in the physics community, I’ve found this to be the most interesting convention. The pictures contain so much information (especially graphs) that they are used as an evidential tool, a descriptive tool, and even an argumentative tool.
Hey guys! I misread the time in the email as midnight not noon so here is my update either way since i had every intention of doing this. So my first struggle was finding a source, the ones i used and looked at this weekend didn’t seem to fit very well with the prompt. The articles i selected were ones i was familiar with such as books from previous classes which are much too thick for this assignment, i have since decided to use an article from an online search engine called the ERIC, Institute of Education Sciences. This helpful search engine was found with the help of Chinook, a common tool for Communications majors at CU. I have narrowed it down to two sources that i am trying to look at, The first is called “Karaōke and Interpersonal Communication in East Asia” and another called “Interpersonal Communication and Public Relations: Twenty Years of Testing Theory in a laboratory.”
I haven’t finished narrowing it down yet just to be safe and make sure both (or at least one) sources are useable. Both of these articles are academic in nature, and not something you would read out of pure leisure. Both of these publications came from university publications, with the Public Relations article coming straight from a Grady college of Journalism and Mass communication.
Both these articles begin with the typical title page and abstracts, shortly followed a brief run down of how communications studies have covered this subject in the past. This is pretty important for communications majors to have context to know and explain to the reader what terms have been coined and what has already been accepted by the community.
Purpose has been a very interesting subject to study within the communications articles. This is because many communications majors are curious about the world around them, the East Asia article for example stuck out to me because i have lived in Asia and hold it close in my heart, i want to know more about a place i lived and to further understand a culture that is not mine. The public relations article is about understanding a brief 20 years of study, an overview with the most recent and interesting facts highlighted the most.