User:Abcaitlinab/New sandbox

Figure out group roles:


 * 1) Time-keeper: John
 * 2) Note-taker: Leo
 * 3) Communications with Cathy: Caitlin
 * 4) etc.: Andrew


 * What needs to get done to improve your page?
 * Our suggestions for improvement include:
 * Additional information about the history of Carol Rogers model of psychotherapy and how it relates to Rogerian Argument
 * Reforming and editing the sections 'Rogerian Strategy' and 'Rogerian Communication'
 * Editing the section that describes how Rogerian Argument is implemented in the 'In practice' section
 * Additional information in the 'in practice' section, including more about oral communication and written communication
 * Additional section that includes other criticisms other than 'Ede's Critique', for example applying the argument model to a topic such as human rights


 * Who is going to do each thing?
 * John & Andrew: Additional information about Carl Rogers/Updating and editing in practice section
 * Caitlin & Leo: Additional information about Critiques and limitations/adding/potentially editing a new section

Caitlin:


 * Communicator with Cathy and organizer of meetings
 * Engage in more research
 * Reorganize sections
 * Expand upon and formulate new paragraphs

Leo:


 * Note taker
 * Delete/edit outdated or unnecessary material on Wikipedia page
 * Engage in more research
 * Expand upon and formulate paragraphs

Andrew:


 * Edit and find the best locations for new information to be added
 * Engage in more research
 * Use critical thinking to find missing information that would be a strong addition to the page
 * Check in with team mates about progress

John:


 * Elaborate on sources and assess information as it connects to our topic
 * Analyze reading sources found by the group
 * Make to do lists to help the group organize
 * Engage in more research
 * Time keeper

(I edited!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)


 * 1) Updated Origin
 * 2) Updated Rogers on Comm.
 * 3) In Practice
 * 4) Ede’s Critique
 * 5) Limitations (possibly split in half)
 * 6) Benefits
 * 7) Frey’s Benefits (?)

Origin:

[From Wikipedia] In the study and teaching of rhetoric and argumentation, the term Rogerian argument was popularized in the 1970s and 1980s[6][7] by the 1970 textbook Rhetoric: Discovery and Change[8] by the University of Michigan professors Richard E. Young, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike, who borrowed the term Rogerian, and related ideas, from another professor who was working, and doing peace activism, at the same university:[9] the game theorist and polymath Anatol Rapoport.[6][7] The University of Texas at Austin professor Maxine Hairston then spread Rogerian argument through publications such as her textbook A Contemporary Rhetoric,[10] and various authors published scholarly articles on the subject.

Rogerian Argument was a term that was created based on the psychotherapy practices of Carl Rogers. Rogers developed a method of therapy that focuses mainly on his patients and their perspectives. Other scholars began to notice how effective this method was; however, it only fitted for verbal conversation. This idea was then constructed to fit into the writing community specifically in rhetoric. It was later produced in a book by other specialists. Professors Richard E. Young, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike used the foundational theory of Rogers and adapted it to be used in writing. They explain this newly adapted theory in a book they wrote in the 1970s. The book was titled, Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. After this book was published, the term Rogerian became popular and other scholars began to write articles about this emerging topic.

In-Practice section: (brainstorm of the 4 phases elaborated)

[From Wikipedia] In 1992, Rebecca Stephens built on Hairston's five "elements of the non-threatening argument" to create a set of 23 questions that she called a Rogerian-based heuristic for rhetorical invention, intended to help students think in a Rogerian way while discovering ideas and arguments.[91] For example, the first two of her 23 questions are "What is the nature of the issue, in general terms?" (and she recommended that the answer should itself be stated as a question) and "Whose lives are affected by the issue?"[92] The last two questions are "What would have to happen to eliminate the disagreement among the opposing groups?" and "What are the chances that this will occur?"[93]

When using these techniques, it’s important to understand them empathetically. In other words, one should stand in the shoes of another in order to see the world from their vantage point.

To start off a Rogerian Argument, especially one that depicts an issue, the arguer should attempt to explain how their stance affects the opponent's position. This can be done with any criticism or bias that relates to both topics. Secondly, they should go on to context to relay their information. Because the preliminary goal of Rogerian's argument is to reduce threat, as well as to pave the way for reasonable discussion, to do this, one must show how and why the opponent's position is understood. The third phase is important because it’s where one explains what reasons they have for choosing their side, and how they can use common ideas and beliefs to persuade the opponent to step into their viewpoint. Lastly, one is to find common ground for what they and their opponent negotiate on.

Leo, are you expanding this section based on your reading of Rebecca Stephens, or are you paraphrasing another source here? Cathygaborusf (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC) Add an example of Rogerian Argument???

Limitations:

[From Wikipedia] Young noted in 1992 that one potential problem with Rogerian argument is that people need it most when they may be least inclined to use it: when mutual antagonistic feelings between two people are most intense. The way Rogerian argument had been taught in rhetoric textbooks may be effective for some situations, Young said, but is unlikely to work between two parties in the kind of situation when they need it most, when they are most intractably opposed. Young suggested that third-party mediation, suggested by Rogers himself in 1951, may be most promising in that kind of situation.

In a paper published in 1998, author and professor Byron Hawk asserts that the Rogerian method of argumentation is limited by one's ability to seek “true” identification, and instead functions as an inventive way to construct ethos. Hawk makes the point that the goal of using empathy to seek genuine understanding is futile because he believes that one’s understanding is ultimately a projection of ourselves. Hawk constructed a group writing assignment for a class using a modified version of Young, Becker, and Pikes approach where they collaborated on a text to find common ground on a topic. Hawk argues that when removing the seduction of the “will to produce” for example, prove the other wrong or win a debate, then the Rogerian method of argumentation can take on a new form of imaginative rhetoric. Leo, I like your idea of adding this summary of Hawk's work, but there are a few minor grammar and punctuations errors here -- just make sure you clean them up before posting. Cathygaborusf (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)