English 102 Rhetorical Analysis Writing Project 2    Relevant course readings:    Laura Bolin Carroll: “Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis” Kerry Dirk:  “Navigating Genres”  Keith Grant­Davie: “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents”    Due dates:    Response draft (at least 1300 words for full credit) due: (one copy uploaded to Moodle; two hard  copies brought to class for exchange):   Feedback letters/response groups meet: (letters uploaded and brought to class):   Polished draft (at least 1600 words for full credit): (in hard copy, delivered in class):     For the second major writing project of the semester, you’ll produce a comparative rhetorical  analysis by choosing between two different options—scientific or political discourse—and  finding and comparing two instances of rhetorical discourse. Whatever option you select, you’ll  need to address the same questions as you develop your understanding of rhetorical discourse  and the way different discourses address differences in rhetorical situation:    1. The question of exigence: What is the discourse about? What need or purpose does the  discourse address? What fundamental values are at stake? What is the discourse trying to  accomplish—and how successful is it?    2. The question of the rhetor: Who is—or are—the rhetor or rhetors? Who is responsible for the  discourse? Who created it? Does the rhetor successfully establish ethos? Why or why not? How  does the discourse itself invoke a particular rhetor? Who sponsored the discourse, and how?    3. The question of audience: For whom is the discourse intended? To whom would this  discourse appeal? Who is the actual audience, and who is the audience invoked or imagined by  the discourse itself? Does the discourse invite the audience to adopt a new role, a new identity?    4. The question of constraints: What constraints did the rhetor have to take into account—what  factors outside of the discourse and beyond the rhetor’s control might influence the audience’s  response to the discourse? Are they negative or positive constraints? How did the rhetor  accommodate those constraints? Was the rhetor successful?  5. The question of genre: What is the genre of the text, and what purpose does this genre  typically serve? How do audience expectations of the genre contribute to our understanding of  the exigence, the intended audience, and the rhetor? What constraints does the genre  introduce?    These constituents of rhetorical situations aren’t an outline for your project; you won’t march  through each of them in succession in the body of your project. Rather, they’re your initial  research questions that will help you to analyze thoroughly the rhetorical dimensions of the texts  you select.    The form and structure of your project will depend, finally, on a refined research question that  will develop out of your research and your understanding of how your chosen texts work.    Project Options:  ...

1. English 102 Rhetorical Analysis Writing Project 2
Relevant course readings:
Laura Bolin Carroll: “Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward R
hetorical Analysis” Kerry Dirk:
“Navigating Genres”
Keith Grant-Davie: “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituent
s”
Due dates:
Response draft (at least 1300 words for full credit) due: (one co
py uploaded to Moodle; two hard
copies brought to class for exchange):
Feedback letters/response groups meet: (letters uploaded and br
ought to class):
Polished draft (at least 1600 words for full credit): (in hard cop
y, delivered in class):
For the second major writing project of the semester, you’ll pro
duce a comparative rhetorical
analysis by choosing between two different options—
scientific or political discourse—and
finding and comparing two instances of rhetorical discourse. W

2. hatever option you select, you’ll
need to address the same questions as you develop your underst
anding of rhetorical discourse
and the way different discourses address differences in rhetorica
l situation:
1. The question of exigence: What is the discourse about? What
need or purpose does the
discourse address? What fundamental values are at stake? What
is the discourse trying to
accomplish—and how successful is it?
2. The question of the rhetor: Who is—or are—
the rhetor or rhetors? Who is responsible for the
discourse? Who created it? Does the rhetor successfully establis
h ethos? Why or why not? How
does the discourse itself invoke a particular rhetor? Who sponso
red the discourse, and how?
3. The question of audience: For whom is the discourse intended
? To whom would this
discourse appeal? Who is the actual audience, and who is the au
dience invoked or imagined by
the discourse itself? Does the discourse invite the audience to a
dopt a new role, a new identity?
4. The question of constraints: What constraints did the rhetor h
ave to take into account—what
factors outside of the discourse and beyond the rhetor’s control
might influence the audience’s
response to the discourse? Are they negative or positive constrai
nts? How did the rhetor

3. accommodate those constraints? Was the rhetor successful?
5. The question of genre: What is the genre of the text, and what
purpose does this genre
typically serve? How do audience expectations of the genre cont
ribute to our understanding of
the exigence, the intended audience, and the rhetor? What const
raints does the genre
introduce?
These constituents of rhetorical situations aren’t an outline for
your project; you won’t march
through each of them in succession in the body of your project.
Rather, they’re your initial
research questions that will help you to analyze thoroughly the r
hetorical dimensions of the texts
you select.
The form and structure of your project will depend, finally, on a
refined research question that
will develop out of your research and your understanding of ho
w your chosen texts work.
Project Options:
I believe that the complexities of rhetorical situations and rheto
rical strategies generally become
clearer when two different texts are compared. This project, ther

4. efore, will ask you to choose
two pieces of rhetorical discourse that address the same topic an
d compare them to see how
differences in exigence, rhetor, audience, and constraints are at
the heart of differences in the
treatment of the topic. You’ll be responsible for finding two tex
ts (“text” being understood in its
broadest sense) and analyzing both thoroughly, the results of yo
ur analysis being a specific
research question about their differences that your paper will att
empt to answer.
Option 1: Analysis of Scientific Accommodation.
Your task in this option will be to compare how scientific findin
gs are “translated” for
non-scientific audiences by comparing a mass media report abou
t a scientific finding to the
scholarly reporting of that research in the original report or jour
nal article.
You’ll begin your project by finding articles in the mass media
—newspapers, magazines, blogs,
etc.—
that cover scientific research and that include references to the
original published report of
the findings. You’ll then track that report down and compare the
original—presumably written for
a specialized, scientific audience--to the article that appeared in
a venue aimed at a general

5. readership.
You’ll then analyze both
discourses from the five perspectives listed above to understand
better
how each operates rhetorically, generating pages of notes that w
ill help you to frame a more
specific research question.
Some possible refined research questions might include
• How is the writing done by scientists for
scientists different from writing in the popular media,
and what do those
differences tell us about the values of the discourse(s) of scienc
e versus the view some other
audience has of the
values of science?
• What doesn’t get included in popular accounts of scientific res
earch, or how does scientific
research get
misrepresented in popular accounts, and what bearing might the
se differences have on the
general public’s understanding of science and the scientific met
hod?

6. More effective projects will pay attention to and discuss
●
The periodicals (or venues) in which the articles appear. What
magazine, website,
newspaper, or journal published these articles? When were they
published? Who is the
audience for this publication? What is the general purpose of thi
s venue? How do you
know? (Hint: you may need to look at copies of the journal from
the library or through its
website—not just the article you’re analyzying.)
●
The authors. What can you learn about them? Are their credenti
als/institutions included?
Can you find anything about them through Google? (If you’re u
nclear on the nature of
academic authorship, Wikipedia actually has a pretty good articl
e on the subject.)
● Specific
differences between the texts. Consider choosing to focus on on
e specific
aspect of the research and then look closely at how it's covered i
n each article: compare
the terms that are used, the way the information is delivered (te
xt alone? charts and
graphs? illustrations?), the sentence structure (active or passive
voice?), etc. Even a

7. close comparison of the titles can suggest a lot about the differe
nces in rhetorical
situations.
●
●
Visuals included. How would you compare the information conv
eyed by any images,
charts, tables, videos, or other graphics used in the two articles?
How do such visuals
contribute to the rhetorical strategy of the article? (Consider inc
luding screenshots or
copies of images and graphics in your actual paper.)
●
●
● The specific
exigencies of each article. It's true that the purpose of popular
coverage of
research is to make specialized information accessible to the pu
blic; it's also true that
scientific writing shares new research with other scientists. But
what knowledge,
specifically
, is at stake in your articles? What new insight does the scientifi
c article
present? What gap in our existing knowledge does it address? W
hy is this research
considered newsworthy? Why, according to the popular coverag

8. e, should a
non
-scientific audience care about this new knowledge? (Consider u
sing the CARS
Model to unpack more specifically the exigence of the research
article.)
●
●
●
The underlying values that inform each article. Why is this rese
arch important to the
scientific community? What values are suggested by the popular
coverage?
●
Referee Reports
What is the purpose of a referee report?
What is the structure of a referee report?
How can I write a good referee report?
Example

9. *
Purpose
Referee reports are the lifeblood of scholarship. They are
supposed to be objective assessments of the originality,
scientific soundness, and conclusions of the work that is
written.
They are supposed to be critical and raise questions and also
provide suggestions for improvement.
*
Purpose
This is not always the case. Many referee reports are useless.
Some will discuss everything that should have been done rather
than assessing whether what was done was actually done well.
They are supposed to be about the manuscript as written, not the
manuscript you wished that they wrote.
*
Structure
Referee Reports have a basic structure
Brief synopisis

10. Overall assessment
Areas of concern/issues to address/lingering questions
Smaller points
*
Brief Synopsis
The very first thing a referee report needs to do is to tell the
editor whether or not you understand the paper at a basic level.
The synopsis at the beginning of the referee report is quite
important.
This is usually a paragraph (4-6 sentences or so) and very rarely
more than that.
*
Brief Synopsis
If your synopsis is a re-hash of the abstract of the paper you are
on the way to a very poor grade for the referee report.
It must be in your own words and describe the paper as you
would describe it to me, not as the author has described it to
you.

11. *
Overall Assessment
The overall assessment is usually a paragraph or two which
notes how you view the paper overall. It addresses some broad
areas that any paper should be concerned about.
*
Overall Assessment
Was the paper well written?
Was the paper original?
Was the paper well motivated?
Did the paper make clear what it was about, what question it
was asking, how it was going to answer it, tell you what the
answer was, and provide some sort of context for what it found?
*
Originality
Does this paper make a contribution to the body of scientific
literature, full stop.

12. Does it tell us something (anything) that we did not know
before?
If not, it certainly is not publishable.
(Did you learn anything?)
*
Motivation
Is this paper answering a question that anybody seems to care
about (other than the author)? Is there a literature that this
paper speaks to? Does it establish something that others would
use and pay attention to?
The author needs to tell you this, but you are also expected to
use your own judgement.
*
Clarity
Does the paper actually do what it said it would do?
Could you follow what the author was doing?
Did they tell you why they were doing what they were doing in
order to answer the question they are asking?

13. *
Areas/Issues
This is the heart of the referee report and should be roughly
75% of the referee report.
This is where you get to show what you know, what you are
confused about, and what you would like to see the author do to
establish their case better than what they have.
*
Areas/Issues
One of the first issues is usually theory.
Do the authors use a theory that is appropriate?
If no theory, why not? Is this just an empirical exercise?
*
Areas/Issues
Does the theory make sense?

14. (Remember Solow and Fogel)
Is the theory appropriate for the issue at hand?
*
Areas/Issues
The second area would be the history.
Does this paper get the history right? (Solow)
Do they cite historians? Is the historical setting described in
enough detail that it tells you that the author knows what they
are talking about?
*
Areas/Issues
This is where you get to say things like…
“I’m confused by the way that they describe the Depression. I
was taught that consumption declines preceded…”
Here, you need to show that you have done readings outside of
class that inform topic of the report.

15. *
Areas/Issues
The largest part of a report will be in showing that you know
the literature that the author(s) is trying to contribute to. And
you should show that you know it well.
*
Areas/Issues
Data and methodology will be a large part of any report.
Is the data appropriate to answer the question?
Is this a direct or indirect method?
If direct, can the data be trusted?
If indirect, can the data be trusted?
*
Areas/Issues
Is the method used with the data described in sufficient detail?
Is the model for the data manipulation plain?

16. Are the proxies used appropriate?
If you don’t understand, say so, that’s valuable in a referee
report.
*
Areas/Issues
It is totally appropriate to get involved with confusion and to be
clear about why you were confused. That is a fault of the
author.
*
Smaller Issues
Misspellings
Typos
Things that were just annoying to you.
Should not be a large part of a report.

17. *