COMM 202 Rhetorical Methods in Communication Research Instructor: Dr. Ronald Lee 437 Oldfather Hall Department of Communication Studies 402-472-2070 Department office 402-540-0260 (cell) rlee1@unl.edu Department website: http://comm.unl.edu Course website: https://my.unl.edu (Blackboard) Office hours: MW 10:30 11:30 or by appointment Department Mission Statement The mission of the faculty and students of the Department of Communication Studies is to examine human symbolic activity as it shapes and is shaped by relationships, institutions, technology, and culture. This work concerns the creation, analysis, and critique of messages ranging from face-to-face to digital media contexts. Communication Studies helps students succeed in an increasingly pluralistic, global, and mediated culture. Students are immersed in mastering the intellectual capacities of public advocacy, analysis of argument, communicating across difference, negotiation and conflict management, family interaction, relational competencies, textual criticism, and empirical research. Students create and test ideas, explore how meaning is communicatively constructed across different contexts, and acquire knowledge and methods that apply to nearly every aspect of their personal, professional, and public lives. Course Description and Objectives Communication Studies 202 is designed to introduce students to the process of reading, analyzing, conducting, and critiquing research on human communication. Research is a pervasive aspect of contemporary life, both inside and outside of the university. Most of the information in your textbooks and the courses at the university are derived from years of research. In addition, in our everyday lives we rely on research to make decisions about voting, how to follow medical and nutritional advice, enjoy successful relationships, and understand statistics about crime, homelessness, the economy, and lifestyle trends. Finally, many of the jobs taken by communication majors such as public relations, advertising, news reporting, marketing, health care, training, sales, politics, and teaching require, or are at the very least are enhanced by, the ability to conduct and interpret research. This course will introduce students to the various aspects associated with research methods in Communication Studies in an effort to illuminate the significance of research about human communication in our lives and help you act as critical consumers of the research you encounter. There are two broad research traditions in Communication Studies. The social-scientific tradition is encompassed in the study of qualitative and quantitative research methods in COMM 201. The humanistic tradition is encompassed in the study of historical-critical research
2 methods, which are the subject matter of this course. These methods, often identified with the label Rhetorical Criticism, are made up of various approaches for the critical analysis of public discourse. This course will acquaint you methods of textual analysis. The specific objectives of this class include: 1. Understanding what distinguishes the social-scientific and humanistic paradigms in communication research. 2. Understanding how rhetoric constructs, maintains, and challenges social reality. 3. Understanding and analyzing the interaction between texts and contexts. 4. Becoming familiar with a range of methods for the study of rhetorical texts. 5. Understanding how critical methodology provides a vocabulary for describing, analyzing, and judging rhetorical episodes. 6. Developing your own reflective critical voice that opens up to others the meaning of specific rhetorical texts. Required Texts Houghton, P. M., & Houghton, T. J. (2009). APA: The easy way (2nd ed.). Flint, MI: Baker College. Sillars, M. O., & Gronbeck, B. E. (2000). Communication criticism: Rhetoric, social codes, cultural studies. Long Grove, IL: Waveland. Readings Available on Blackboard Bitzer, L. F. (1968). Rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1, 1-14. Brockriede, W. (1974). Rhetorical criticism as argument. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60, 165-174. Black, E. (1970). The second persona. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 56, 109-119. Campbell, K. K., & Jamieson, K. H. (1978). Form and genre in rhetorical criticism: An introduction. In K. K. Campbell & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), Form and genre: Shaping rhetorical action (pp. 9-32). Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association. Campbell, K. K., & Jamieson, K. H. (1990). Inaugural Addresses. Deeds Done in Words: Presidential Rhetoric and the Genres of Governance (pp. 14-36). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3 Charland, M. (1987). Constitutive rhetoric: The case of the Peuple Québécois. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73, 133-150. Cloud, D. L. (1998). The rhetoric of <family values>: Scapegoating, utopia, and the privatization of social responsibility. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 387-419. Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communication Monographs, 51, 1-22. Foss, K. (1983). John Lennon and the advisory function of eulogies. Central States Speech Journal, 34, 187-94. Hill, F. (1972). Conventional wisdom traditional form the President s message of November 3, 1969. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58, 373-386. Hollihan, T. A., Riley, P., & Freadhoff, K. (1986). Arguing for justice: An analysis of arguing in small claims courts. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 22, 187-195. Iyengar, S. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political Behavior, 12, 19-40. Lee, R. (2005). Ideographic criticism. In J. Kuypers (Ed.), Art of rhetorical criticism (pp. 305-344). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. McGee, M. C. (1975). In search of The People : A rhetorical alternative. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 63, 235-249. McGee, M. C. (1980). The ideograph A link between rhetoric and ideology. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 1-16. Nichols, M. H. (1993). Lincoln s First Inaugural (1954). In T. W. Benson (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetorical criticism (pp. 51-88). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press. Rushing, J. H. (1983). The rhetoric of the American western myth. Communication Monographs, 50, 14-32. Wander, P. (1983). The ideological turn in modern criticism. Central States Speech Journal, 34, 1-18. Ware, B. L., & Linkugel, W. A. (1973). They spoke in defense of themselves: On generic criticism of apologia. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 273-283. Zarefsky, D. (1998). Four senses of rhetorical history. In K. J. Turner (Ed.), Doing rhetorical history: Concepts and cases. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Requirements/Course Assignments
4 Group presentation: You will be assigned to a small group. Once during the semester your group will be asked to make a presentation of published examples of rhetorical criticism using a particular critical methodology. (10%, 50 points) Attendance/participation: I will take attendance regularly. I expect you to read faithfully and come to class prepared to discuss the assigned material. (10%, 50 points) Rhetorical situation criticism: Write a short 6-8 pp. rhetorical criticism using the approach identified with Lloyd Bitzer s Rhetorical Situation. Be prepared to present your paper in class. (20%, 100 points) Genre criticism: Write a short 6-8 pp. rhetorical criticism employing the concept of genre. Be prepared to present your paper in class. (20%, 100 points) Narrative/mythic criticism: Write a short 6-8 pp. rhetorical criticism using approaches suggested by thinking of a persuasive appeal as a story. Be prepared to present your paper in class. (20%, 100 points) Ideographic criticism: Write a short 6-8 pp. rhetorical criticism using approaches suggested by Michael McGee s work on the "people" and the ideograph. Be prepared to present your paper in class. (20%, 100 points) Course Policies 1. Evaluation of student work: A written evaluation will accompany the essays. My comments will focus on the quality of the writing, the soundness of the argument, and the thoroughness of the research. A specific set of standards will be handed out for each essay. If you disagree with my evaluation of your work, feel free to come and speak with me. Please do this within a day or two of the time you receive your evaluation. I am not defensive about my grading and you should feel no apprehension about discussing the evaluation of your work. On occasion I have been persuaded to change a grade. 2. Completion of assignments: All major assignments must be completed in order to pass the course. If a student fails to turn in an essay or does not participate in the group presentation, the student will receive an F for the final course grade regardless of the quality of other work. 3. Late work and excused absences: Extensions will be granted only where the student is able to document special circumstances and provide the instructor with prior notification. All other work will be penalized one letter grade for every 24 hours past the due date. 4. Grading scale: You may always check your grade by going to Blackboard, clicking My Grades. Your final grade is based on the following scale: A = 500-465 (93%) C = 384-365 (73%) A- = 464-450 (90%) C- = 364-350 (70%)
5 B+ = 449-435 (87%) D+ = 349-335 (67%) B = 434-415 (83%) D = 334-315 (63%) B- = 414-400 (80%) D- = 314-300 (60%) C+ = 399-385 (77%) F = 299 and below ( 60%) 5. Passing grade: You must receive at least a C for the course to count toward the major. By university rule, a C- is an insufficient grade to count toward completing the major. All major assignments must be completed in order to pass the course. 6. Academic misconduct: Violations of academic integrity are very serious matters and will result in automatic failure of the class, and referral to the proper university officials. The work a student submits in a class is expected to be the student s own work and must be completed for that particular class and assignment. Academic dishonesty includes: handing in another s work or part of another s work as your own, turning in one of your old papers for a current class, turning in the same or similar past or current paper for two different classes, presenting a group project as your work solely, purchasing or otherwise obtaining research or papers written by another and turning that work in as your own. Using unauthorized notes or other study aids or otherwise obtaining another s answers for an examination also represents a breach of academic integrity. Sanctions are applied whether the violation was intentional or not. You must keep all your original data for projects (i.e. articles, questionnaires, interview audio tapes) and be prepared to present them to the professor when asked. Plagiarism means intentionally or knowingly representing the words of ideas of another as one s own. Plagiarism includes quoting or paraphrasing from other sources without acknowledging/citing the source of your information or presenting quoted material as your own words. You must be very clear about attribution of sources and you must know how to cite sources in a paper. Students who are unfamiliar with how to cite sources should purchase a style manual such as the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Claiming lack of knowledge about standards for writing is not an acceptable excuse for committing plagiarism. Come to a faculty member for help if you are at all unsure about any of these issues or seek help at the UNL Writing Assistance Center (472-8803, Andrews Hall 129). No one wants to see you have these kinds of problems with your work, so please start assignments early and seek help when you need it. 7. Accommodations: Students with disabilities are encouraged to contact the instructor for a confidential discussion of their individual needs for academic accommodation. It is the policy of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to provide flexible and individualized accommodation to students with documented disabilities that may affect their ability to fully participate in course activities or to meet course requirements. To receive accommodation services, students must be registered with the Services for Students with Disabilities (SSD) office, 132 Canfield Administration, 472-3787 voice or TTY.
6 Schedule Week 1 M, Jan 11 Welcome! Introduction to COMM 202 W, Jan 13 Human inquiry about communication Paradigms (ways of viewing the world) of knowing in communication research Week 2 M, Jan 18 Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (no class) W, Jan 20 Distinguishing among quantitative, Hollihan, Riley, & Freadhoff (1986); qualitative, and critical research Iyengar (1990) Week 3 M, Jan 25 What is rhetoric? Sillars & Gronbeck, chs. 1-3 W, Jan 27 What is rhetorical criticism? Brockriede (1974); Zarefsky (1998) Week 4 M, Feb 1 Traditional criticism Sillars & Gronbeck (2000), ch. 6 (or neo-aristotelian criticism) Hill (1972) Lloyd Bitzer s Rhetorical Situation Bitzer (1968) W, Feb 3 Selection of a text for criticism Analyzing the context in criticism Nichols (1993)
7 Week 5 M, Feb 8 Organizing the rhetorical criticism essay W, Feb 10 Presentation of Rhetorical Situation essays Week 6 M, Feb 15 Presentation of Rhetorical Situation essays continued. W, Feb 17 Generic criticism Campbell & Jamieson (1978) Apologia as genre Ware & Linkugel (1973). Week 7 M. Feb 22 Eulogy as genre Foss (1983) Inaugural addresses as genre Campbell & Jamieson (1990) W, Feb 24 Selection of a genre for analysis Selecting a text for genre analysis Organizing the genre criticism Week 8 M, Feb 29 Presentation of Rhetorical Genre essays W, Mar 2 Presentation of Rhetorical Genre essays continued Week 9 M, Mar 7 Narrative/mythic criticism Sillars & Gronbeck (2000), ch. 10 W, Mar 9 Narrative paradigm Fisher (1984) The nature and function of myth Rushing (1983) M, Mar 14 Selecting a text for analysis Week 10 Identifying narrative/mythic elements in the text
8 W, Mar 16 Organization of the narrative/mythic criticism M, Mar 21- Spring Break. W, Mar 25 Week 11 Week 12 M, Mar 28 Presentation of Narrative/Mythic essays W, Mar 30 Presentation of Narrative/Mythic essays continued Week 13 M, Apr 4 The ideological turn in rhetorical criticism Sillars & Gronbeck (2000), ch. 12; Wander (1983); Black (1970) Explaining the nature of ideology and Lee (2005) power W, Apr 6 Ideographic criticism McGee (1975); McGee (1980); Cloud (1998) M, Apr 11 Selecting a text for analysis Identifying ideographs in the text Week 14 W, Apr 13 Organizing the ideographic criticism Week 15 M, Apr 18 Presentation of Ideographic essays W, Apr 20 Presentation of Ideographic essays continued Week 15 M, Apr 25 COMM 201 and 202 classes will share their work for the sake of enriching the comparison between social-scientific and rhetorical approaches to the study of communication
W, Apr 27 Attending the 495 Capstone Poster Session, 9:30 10:20 Wednesday, City Union; in class, complete course evaluations and discuss how to improve COMM 202. 9