Rogerian Argumentation

Rogerian Argumentation addresses some of the main misconceptions about arguments: that they are confrontational, oppressive, and center around at least two competitive, incompatible perspectives.

On the contrary. Rogerian Argumentation is centered around principles of mutual understanding, sympathy, and corroboration. Its purpose is to find a common ground between the two parties: a balance where both sides of the issue can come to an agreement. It is a much more amicable way to discuss differences.

Rogerian Arguments follow a four-step process designed to both ingratiate yourself to opposition and to help you better understand and sympathize with them:

• Address the issue. It's important to identify that there is an issue – not that you have an issue or someone else has an issue but that an issue exists. While being careful not to take sides, you should address the issue by taking a serious look at the situation from a neutral perspective and address what both sides can agree on.
• Identify positives and negatives of the opposition. You aren’t trying to bring down your opposition: you are trying to show your understanding. This way, you present yourself as concerned about the issue and sympathetic to their concerns without tearing down their entire argument. Sometimes, we can feel inclined to point out every fallacy and short-coming, but rarely are things so simple and convenient. Instead of tearing down, build them up, and show you are sympathetic to your opposition.
• Identify positives and negatives of your own stance. Rather than lift your own stance on the issue as a paradigm, you should own up to its shortcomings: making your own stance seem ideal can be just as off-putting as tearing down an opposing side. Instead of championing your own stance, approach your stance as if you were a third-party. Be objective and be honest.
• Compromise. Having established that you understand and are sympathetic to both sides of the issue, it is time to work out a compromise: propose a plan that employs the strengths and positive aspects of both sides, while simultaneously minimizing the weaknesses and negative aspects. By suggesting a compromise, you recognize your opposition has a voice in the matter, and you disagree with but still respect, as opposed to disregarding all different opinions.

Analyzing both sides of an issue can help us understand the complexities of a problem and others' perspectives. It’s all too easy to limit our own perspectives, rather than consider the opinions or concerns of others, or even take a serious look at the problem itself, but we can mire ourselves with our preoccupations and prejudices. Rogerian Argumentation gives us a way to reevaluate just how we see and deal with problems or topics.

By way of disclaimer, I want to add, while the principles behind Rogerian Argumentation can be be applied to any situation, compromise is not always an option. One side may not be willing to concede to a compromise, or a mutually beneficial option simply is not feasible. 

However, no matter what the situation, take time to explore, understand, and in particular, articulate the positions of your opposition.

Is It Worth Using? The Appropriateness of Sources and The Rhetorical Triangle

Not all sources are created equally. Some sources are better than others.

This post deals with research, but not how to use research. Rather, whether or not the sources are worth using. Unreliable or inappropriate sources can actually hurt your credibility because it suggests your research is insufficient, and if the information you are using to develop your argument is bad, then your argument will also be bad.

The hard part is in determining whether or not a source is reliable. Granted there are some indicators that will almost guarantee good sources – government web pages, peer reviewed journals, university publications – but these aren't the only reliable sources, and only deal with one aspect of reliability: who published it? While this can be a good start, it is important to evaluate a source from multiple angles. The angles I recommend evaluating from stem from the Rhetorical Triangle:

• Ethos: In a way, Ethos is how an author presents themselves in their writing: their ability to demonstrate their authority in the text itself. They may do this by referencing their own research or referencing their experience and work in the field, which is sometimes evident through their terminology and style. In short, whether or not the text presents itself authoritatively.
• Logos: If the source's conclusions don't make sense, or if they rely on logical fallacies to support their claims, then the source is not reliable. The source should move easily from topic to topic, without any jumps in logic, and should be in agreement with other sources on the same topic.
• Pathos: For whom was it written? This actually returns to the issue of publication; peer reviewed pieces will be written for experts. It is possible to identify the intended readership of a piece based on how detailed it is, or on the terminology used. A piece that appropriately uses specified vocabulary will be for a more educated audience than one that doesn't, and one that misuses terminology will be one to stay away from.

Evaluating sources is a matter of looking for textual evidence showing the author's appropriate use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. For a classic example, I turn to Wikipedia. Wikipedia gets a bad rap because it is collaborative - anyone and everyone can go and make changes to it and it is frequently shot down on that basis alone. However, like I said before, that’s only looking at it from one perspective: it’s important to consider it from multiple angles:

• Ethos: Despite the collaborative, anyone-can-do-it nature of Wikipedia, most Wikipedia pages have references lists and citations, like any decent piece of research. These pages are also checked and double checked by users who make sure that the information is correct and accurately presented. Whatever few bad vandals there are, there are many more that make sure the information is good.
• Logos: The information on Wikipedia tends to make sense: it's logical, and users can keep the information straight. With this in mind though, it's a good idea to go back and double check Wikipedia pages in case there was faulty information. So, it could not be reliable on this basis, but it isn't the nail in the coffin for this resource.
• Pathos: It's an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are designed to be neutral and provide readily understandable information for people who have even a superficial understanding. This means the information on Wikipedia, while likely trustworthy, will not go into any substantial depth. The information is cursory; superficial. It's basic information that someone doing serious research should already know.

In short, Wikipedia is a reliable source – but it is not an appropriate one. It’s information is accurate, but superficial. You can do better.

Once we stop and understand that just because something is reliable does not mean it is appropriate, we can look at our research differently. It's like when I have students who count fact sheets as resources: lists of dates, figures, and sometimes fancy info-graphics without any serious analysis. The information may be perfectly reliable, but if you are committed to doing serious research, leave the sundries aside and focus on the sources that explore the concepts in detail.

Active Research: An Overview of Research

Every composition course I’ve ever taught has had a research component, and in some it’s more prevalent than others. With each course, I hope my students understand that they take composition classes not just to learn to write but to be better prepared to work in the disciplines they're studying. I want my students to understand research is an important part of why they’re in school. We don't just research to satisfy assignment requirements, but to learn: it’s the same reason we go to school.

Good research requires more than skimming a few sources and quoting a few quaint lines. It involves a lot of work to properly read and understand the research being done, so here’s a few things to bear in mind:

• Selection: Taking the first few results on a Google search or books from the library shelf and only using these is not research. It's important to read, or even skim, through a plethora of sources to determine which ones are worth taking a closer look at. It may take some time to find sources pertinent to your topic.
• Close Reading and Note Taking: Skimming is okay when selecting which sources to use, but research requires more than just that. Research involves reading closely and taking notes to help yourself understand, process, and, most importantly, retain the information.
• Authority: An expert in a field can tell when someone who isn't an expert tries to pass themselves off as one. Having authority as a researcher and writer means you recognize and understand the breadth and complexity of your field, while also understanding there is a lot you just don't know yet.
• Hypothesis: A hypothesis is what you expect your thesis to be. In order to properly hypothesize, you need to have a basic understanding of the topic – and you need research to do that.
• Quoting and Paraphrasing: It isn't enough to just read something and cite it; you need to take the information and fairly and correctly present it in your writing and develop upon those ideas.
• Summary: Similar to quoting and paraphrasing, but rather than selections from a piece, summarizing involves describing the entire piece, cover to cover.
• Evaluation: Determining whether or not a source is worth using. This is more than the aforementioned selection because it’s going from if a source is worth reading to considering its reliability or how it can be used.
• Citing: Making sure you are showing credit where credit is due. Properly citing shows your understanding of conventions in your discipline and respect for those whose work you are using. Any time you use the ideas, concepts, or words of others, you show where it came from.
• Plagiarism: Failing to cite. Not showing where you got your ideas from is tantamount to stealing. Don't do it.

In addition to relevant topics, a few genres deal specifically with research.

• Annotated Bibliography: A list of sources with accompanying commentary, general summaries or evaluations of the sources in question. These are rarely published but are extremely useful tools in research.
• Literature Review: These can be stand alone essays, but are generally the opening pages to research pieces. They address the research going into the piece itself, demonstrating how the writer developed their conclusions and hypotheses, while simultaneously establishing their authority through their familiarity with the research.

When you approach research assignments, don't just stop when you have enough to fill a works cited page and scatter a few citations in your writing. Research is an invaluable opportunity to learn, to become more knowledgeable and expert about your topic, to hone your interests in specific ways, or to even learn just where your interests lie. Research, therefore, cannot be passive: it has to be active, involving multiple steps and hard work, not because it's important to do research assignments, but because it is important to learn.

The Rhetorical Triangle

Once, I invited a friend to give a brief presentation to my Freshman composition students. I had attended his presentation at a conference; I had attended for moral support. He presented on an engineering topic. It took about three minutes for me to be lost.

After my friend presented to my students, he repeated it in layman’s terms. He refrained from his complex formulas and terminology, and simplified his methodology. My friend didn't adapt his subject or findings, but rather his rhetoric.

Rhetoric refers to the forms and techniques writers and speakers use, and helps us better understand who is writing, for whom it is being written, and what is being written. This concept dates back to Aristotle, from whom we have the corresponding terms Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, which make up what is commonly called the Rhetorical Triangle. By identifying and focusing on each of these individually and in relationship to one another, it is possible to make sure our writing has a purpose and, rather than simply being an amalgamation of words, it can achieve that purpose.

Ethos – Who does the writing; authority. This refers to the author and, by extension, their authority. 

This is not as simple as the author identifying their credentials, but is done by their handling of the information and their research. It would be awkward in most pieces for an author to flaunt their training, experience, degrees, certifications, etc. Instead, a stronger use of Ethos comes from demonstrating an understanding of what is going on in the field. A surgeon who brags about how many lives they've saved, but is unfamiliar with recent advances in surgical practice isn't the best surgeon. It would be better to go to someone who stays on top of their field and deftly uses current and reasonable information.

Pathos – The writing is written for whom; audience awareness: how the piece is written for its audience.

Using Pathos involves appealing to the interests and concerns of the target audience, as well as considering their own level of expertise. This can range from the language used to the amount of detail: the more expert the audience, the more technical the language and the more detailed the information. Good Pathos will consider, and even involve researching, the intended audience so their specific concerns are addressed. Bad Pathos will either make something too complicated, too simple, or not make it relevant enough for the audience; it can alienate your audience, or worse, disrespect them.

Logos – What is written; logic. Refers to the logic of the piece of writing – the arguments and ideas being put forward in the writing. 

In its purest sense, logic is If A, then B, or If A and B, then C. Therefore, logos is how well the essay itself articulates the important aspects of its topic and draws them together into a conclusion. Logos will manifest itself primarily in the content, thesis, and organization of an essay; and in how all three interact. An essay with weak transitions (an organization issue) likely has a weak thesis as well, because the arguments presented in the essay are not clearly going from topic to topic and building towards a solid conclusion. The essay may say if A and B then C, but if the essay does not make it clear how the combination of A and B yield C, then the audience will be lost and confused.

Conclusion

Different situations and genres will call for different approaches to the rhetorical appeals, but this does not mean they are never present. Each genre and situation will require a different approach. A research essay will employ Ethos differently than a personal essay, and a piece intended for amateurs will need to present its logic differently than one for experts. Rhetoric helps writers assess their entire situation by considering knowledge, the communication itself, and the intended recipients. Different situations will require different appeals, even if Ethos, Pathos, and Logos will always be used. While it is important to consider each of these rhetorical appeals, it is more important to keep them appropriate for your context and purposes.