Rogerian Model
White & Billings
Carl Rogers
“The relationship which I have found
helpful is characterized by … an
acceptance of [the] other person as a
s...
Traditional language is too combative
Win or Lose (Resolve)
Attack a thesis or position (understand)
Traditional languag...
Starting with the Rogerian Model
Start with a common ground
The virtue of finding common ground is
that a person can iso...
Modifying the Classical Model
Identifies common ground
(points of agreement) before
calling attention to points of
disagr...
Goal
Not to win or prove wrong
but
to arrive at an agreed-on truth
Outline (Because I know you want one)
I. Introduction
I. What is the shared problem, Identify context
II. A vignette that ...
Exercises
5.1 Questions 1-5
5.2 Questions 1-7
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Rogerian Model of Argument

1,692 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Spiritual
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,692
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
64
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Rogerian Model of Argument

  1. 1. Rogerian Model White & Billings
  2. 2. Carl Rogers “The relationship which I have found helpful is characterized by … an acceptance of [the] other person as a separate person with value in his own right, and by a deep empathetic understanding which enables me to see his private world through his eyes.”
  3. 3. Traditional language is too combative Win or Lose (Resolve) Attack a thesis or position (understand) Traditional language puts people in two camps - divided – which causes antagonism between parties, furthering the divide, not allowing for a resolution to be reached.
  4. 4. Starting with the Rogerian Model Start with a common ground The virtue of finding common ground is that a person can isolate and resolve the points of opposition more effectively after identifying the points of agreement because the hostility of the audience has been reduced by showing and understanding of the audience’s perspective.
  5. 5. Modifying the Classical Model Identifies common ground (points of agreement) before calling attention to points of disagreement.
  6. 6. Goal Not to win or prove wrong but to arrive at an agreed-on truth
  7. 7. Outline (Because I know you want one) I. Introduction I. What is the shared problem, Identify context II. A vignette that illustrates the problem III. A second scenario but with greater complexity that some solutions cannot handle well. II. Points of agreement III. Where we differ: I. Thesis – stated briefly then explain what you understand to be the beliefs of others including misunderstandings (drawbacks or limited applications of others’ solutions) and possible reasons behind misunderstandings II. You must treat the opposition with respect or your readers will not trust the rest of your argument IV. Support for thesis, elements both positions have in common, concede weaknesses V. Present a starting point for further discussion based on shared goals and interests, with a clear statement of areas left to be explore and discussed. I. Here you are trying to convince the reader that it is safe to enter into a dialogue in order to come to an agreeable solution. II. Conclusion, how we can resolve our differences; or, an exhortation to resolving differences together, end on a positive note of hope.
  8. 8. Exercises 5.1 Questions 1-5 5.2 Questions 1-7

×