Writing Process--Organization-Rogerian Method

Writing Strategies Part 2

In a rhetorical, argumentative paper you have to be persuasive, which means you must include and present information to your audience that will encourage your audience to agree with you. This tension—created between an author (you) that wishes to persuade and the audience who must be persuaded—must be at the forefront of what/how you put your argument together. The common ground we (the persuaders and persuaded) share is reason. (Duffin, 1998).

What kinds of examples you include, style of language you use and when and how you get your reader to embrace your reasons are all chief concerns of the argument writer. How do we arrange this information? I’ve said that I don’t believe a concrete outline helps many of us. However, knowing some common rhetorical methods will help and employing a general flow chart will help (1998, Kathy Duffin, The Writing Center at Harvard University, http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/documents/Overvu.html).

Building common ground. In the Rogerian method of argumentation. You build the common ground between you readers and yourself, never giving away your thesis until the very end. Tricky, yes. Useful, probably. This was developed by Carl Rogers, a psychologist, and is useful for emotionally charged topics.

The purpose of a Rogerian argument is to find the common ground held by the author and audience regarding an issue or problem. The authors explores the audience’s POV and must present the audience's perspective clearly, accurately, and fairly before asking them to consider an alternative position or solution.

This method downplays emotional appeals is a must for emotionally charged, highly divisive issues and allows for people of good will on different sides of an issue to find, or agree upon, solutions together.

Here’s a sample flow chart (taken from writing.colostate.edu):
Introduction: A problem is presented, typically pointing out how both writer and reader are affected by the problem. Rather than presenting an issue that divides reader and writer, or a thesis that demands agreement the Rogerian argument does not begin with the writer's position at all. The thesis is withheld.
Then: The Audience Perspective. Described as clearly and accurately as possible-typically in neutral language-the author acknowledges their point of view and the circumstances and contexts in which their perspective or position is valid. Done well, the author builds good will and credibility with the audience, a crucial step leading toward potential compromise. Honest, heartfelt sincerity is the key here: if the audience perceives an attempt at manipulation, the Rogerian argument strategy generally backfires. This segment depends, again, on neutral but clear language so that the reader perceives the fair-mindedness of the writer's description.
Then: The author's perspective comes in the next chunk of the argument. For the audience to give it a listen it must be presented in as fair-minded a way as was theirs, in language as equally neutral and clear. To be convincing, besides describing the circumstances or contexts in which the position is valid, it must contain the evidence that supports the claim
Conclusion: The Rogerian essay closes not by asking readers to give up their own positions on the problem but by showing how the reader would benefit from moving toward the writer's position. In other words, the final section of the Rogerian argument lays out possible ways to compromise. (fromwriting.colostate.edu/guides/documents/arguedraft)