For the second essay, you will structure a Rogerian argument based around a topic, issue, or controversy related to your chosen discipline (academic field of study or desired profession or career).
The following are some examples of how one might situate an issue or topic within a specific major or profession:
1. InformationTechnology (for example: virtual communities, AI, robotics, digital censorship, surveillance, etc)
2. Health Care (for example: universal health care, physician-assisted suicide, health care access for underprivileged citizens, racial disparities in health outcomes, etc)
3. Business or Economics (income inequality, taxation, trade balance, antitrust, etc)
4. Culinary Arts (food regulation, farm subsidies, food safety, pandemic response, etc.)
5. Education (school underfunding, racial disparities in educational access, standardized testing, etc)
Note: You must have approval from your instructor for your essay topic. Topics not approved by instructor will not be accepted.
PLEASE NOTE: The following topics are off-limits for for this and all other essay assignments, in order to encourage more original arguments.
Legalization of Marijuana
Death Penalty
Abortion
Pay for College Athletes
Once you and your instructor have selected your topic, do some preliminary web research on the topic to get an idea of the parameters of existing discussion.
What claims are being made regarding these issues? By whom? Get a sense of the conversation that’s already happening.
Take some time to consider what you have read and to think about your own beliefs and ideas about this issue. What claim are you prepared to assert? Jot that down to begin your research.
Once you have established this claim, begin your research. I strongly suggest that you adhere to the following process:
Consult the library databases, such as NC Live (see library link under Student Support in the course menu). Look for strong contemporary (within the last three years) articles that support your assertion. Search the library online catalog for books on your topic. Remember that as you complete your research, you should make copies of the publication information so that you will be able to compile a bibliography that corresponds to the requirements of the assignment.
Sources: Minimum of 6 sources. Use the following guidelines when selecting sources:
Three articles from scholarly journals (accessed through NC live). Be sure that you use a full-text article, as you cannot cite an abstract.
One book by an authority on the subject. This may be an e-book. Do not use a book review as a source.
One newspaper article, if your event is recent enough.
Any credible additional sources you find necessary such as a websites, magazine article, journal article, book, personal interview, or documentary. These sources must be credible with named authors and demonstrable expertise.
Format: MLA with MLA documentation, including attribution, in-text citation, and a Works Cited page.
Rogerian Arguments
Rogerian Arguments
Rogerian Argument
Critical thinking means opening up our minds to diverse and unfamiliar points of view. The kinds of exploration we undertake in English 112 can also require us to test our own assumptions and sometimes reshape or reject ideas we may have previously held dear or even considered unquestionable. In addition, critical thinking often compels us to realize that issues, ideas, or circumstances we may have considered simple or straightforward are, in fact, complex, requiring more nuanced thought or a deeper consideration. The ability to recognize these complexities and use this recognition to cultivate more in-depth understanding will help us negotiate our complicated world in more informed, objective, and unprejudiced ways.
Carl Rogers was a famous 20th-century psychologist who developed a method of mediation in which two people in a disagreement or conflict were each asked to state the positions of the other person prior to verbalizing their own positions. Rogers found that asking someone to first consider an opposite perspective led to better outcomes in negotiating conflicts or misunderstandings. By interweaving seemingly contradictory perspectives, opponents could often find workable compromises they had before been unable to reach. Scholars quickly discovered that this technique might also help writers invent nuanced solutions to complex problems, and developed the Rogerian argument as a tool for exploring such issues and reaching compromise solutions.
Rogerian Structure
Rogerian argument integrates multiple viewpoints in order to arrive at a middle ground, or compromise solution, rather than to produce a “winner” and “loser.” This type of argument is often distinguished from “Classical” argument, which typically incorporates opposing or divergent viewpoints only to point out their weaknesses, or simply as a means to support the dominant thesis. Unlike Rogerian arguments, a “Classical” argument typically states a clear thesis near the beginning, including as support only that evidence which best reinforces or upholds that thesis, and airing carefully-selected opposing viewpoints only for the purposes of counterargument. Rogerian arguments, on the other hand, incorporate multiple perspectives, not to dissect or to oppose them, but rather to integrate diverse positions into a compromise, or middle ground, that also serves as the main thesis, or claim, of the essay.
Rogerian arguments also differ in structure from more traditional arguments. Instead of presenting the thesis in the introductory material, the Rogerian writer often chooses to defer the thesis statement until the end of the argument, waiting until many diverse perspectives have been explored before disclosing the main point of the essay. Rogerian writers typically capture the reader’s attention with an engaging introduction, and then, rather than stating the thesis overtly, provide the audience with a general discussion of the issue. The object of this type of introduction is to “set the stage” before presenting a wide variety of viewpoints from diverse (and even diametrically opposed) perspectives, leading to a compromise, middle-ground conclusion.
A Contemporary Example: Immigration Policy
One function of the Rogerian approach is to reconcile extreme positions. This can be especially useful for exploring issues prone to “False Dichotomy” fallacies (also known as “False Dilemmas,” “Either/Or,” or “Black and White” fallacies), where potential arguments are falsely restricted to invite only binary “yes or no” or “pro or con” responses. Rogerian arguments are often used to illuminate these types of issues, extracting meaningful compromises from the integration of seemingly oppositional viewpoints.
U.S. immigration policy is one contemporary issue that can elicit polarized or even antagonistic stances. In order to persuade a broadly diverse audience, a well-reasoned Rogerian argument seeks to moderate between many possible positions to suggest a policy amenable to a wide audience. To most readers, for example, a policy position which prohibits immigration completely would seem extreme; so, too, would a position which advocates for free and unrestricted immigration. In between these two positions, however, lies a wide range of potential policies ripe for exploration. A Rogerian argument about immigration policy first considers a spectrum of divergent viewpoints, then creates a policy recommendation that incorporates differing concerns
In such a case, an arguer might first engage the reader with an impactful, attention-getting introduction, and then provide the reader with some background information demonstrating the importance of sound immigration policy or explaining briefly the history of the issue. Next, the arguer would integrate ideas backed by research exploring differing perspectives on the effects of immigration—on culture, economy, government, or health care, just to name a few possibilities. These divergent positions should be supported by evidence gathered from credible sources (and incorporated into the essay using correct documentation and citation). To avoid bias, and to convince the reader of his or her credibility, the author should make a deliberate effort to represent voices from multiple stakeholders; some examples might include immigrants, policymakers, workers, foreign governments, border and other law enforcement officials, health care employees, or social workers. This researched support might either be organized according to subtopic, or divided roughly into “pro-immigration” and “anti-immigration” stances, with the idea that the final thesis bring various perspectives together, presenting a compromise workable to all sides.
Finally, the conclusion would offer a detailed, nuanced policy argument (or, thesis) that proposes a “middle-ground” policy or solution. In this case, for example, an author might offer a policy that encourages legal immigration, but with some carefully explained restrictions or exceptions. Based on this recommendation, the arguer would of course want to discuss how such a policy might affect the economy, employment, culture, health care, or governance, consistent with the issues discussed in the body of the essay. Though this policy may not satisfy all viewpoints regarding immigration, it is likely that such a compromise position would be workable to a broad diversity of readers—whose opinions would likely lie somewhere in between polar extremes.
Conclusion
Based on the belief that a combining of diverse perspectives leads to more equitable outcomes, Rogerian arguments are especially good for exploring complicated issues with diverse stakeholders and widely differing perspectives. Though not useful in all contexts or for all issues, Rogerian arguments are nonetheless an important tool for students of argumentation. Voicing, hearing, and considering differing viewpoints in search of compromise is a hallmark of sophisticated critical thinking—a necessity for success in English 112 and beyond.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|