A rogerian argument

A rogerian argument

11/12/ · In other words, the Rogerian argument looks at the idea from different sides and does not categorically deny any of them. There is always a golden middle or common ground for different beliefs. Rogerian rhetoric is a problem-solving technique based on seeking common ground instead of conflicting. Every essay writing dilemma/10() 10/5/ · Rogerian argument is an argument where the both sides win because of the careful approach and persuasion. It is mainly useful in psychological arguments, rather than in logical or scientific arguments. Such an argument is supposed to lead to an appropriate solution by listening to and considering both the sides Rogerian argument is often difficult for students to understand because it asks them to think about controversial topics in a different way: from the perspective of someone they disagree with. The discussions that follow are meant to help you understand the reason for and the components of an argument in Rogerian style

Sample Rogerian Argument - Excelsior College OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Rogerian argument or Rogerian rhetoric is a form of argumentative reasoning that aims to establish a middle ground between parties with opposing viewpoints or goals. For example, if you wanted to watch a comedy and your friend wanted to watch a romance, you might compromise by offering to watch a rom-com, as this offers each of you a bit of what you are looking for in that a rogerian argument moment.

Note, however, that this style of argument is decidedly less common in academic settings, where various empirical or theoretical notions of truth are often prized a rogerian argument the practical advantages of the Rogerian method. While Aristotelian styles of argument are often seen as eristic concerned primarily with winningthe Rogerian argument can be viewed as more dialectic in nature a conversation between two or more parties with the goal of arriving at some mutually-satisfying solution.

Thus, practicing the Rogerian argument will enhance your ability to understand the complex relations of opposing viewpoints and provide tools for addressing such discrepancies sympathetically. However, Rogerian argument does come with disadvantages. For example, because Rogerian argument relies on compromise between opposing parties, it may not work well when your opponents are unwilling or unable to compromise, or if they are arguing in bad faith e.

The first aim shows the reader that you understand the complexities of the argument and that you have listened sympathetically to what it is they have to say.

This is important, because the success of the Rogerian arguments relies on cooperation and collaboration. The second aim puts this understanding into practice by seeking a symbiotic solution. The third aim builds ethos and rapport between the parties.

If audiences believe they share a value system with a speaker or writer, they are more likely to agree to the terms of whatever solution is presented. While each of these aims is important, Young, Becker, and Pike stress that they are just that: aims, not steps. You should not necessarily view these aims as occurring in a linear, step-by-step process. The authors present a synthesized discussion of what a successful Rogerian argument should contain, but they eschew any formalized structure.

The structure of the argument should instead be determined by the speaker, and it should be modified and adapted according to the rhetorical situation at hand. Again, there is no formalized structure for the Rogerian argument, though the following example provides a foundation for considering how you might structure your own argument. In this example, we will take the position that technology a rogerian argument. In so doing, a rogerian argument, we should be able to arrive at a solution that considers both arguments and develops a solution that benefits both parties while a rogerian argument achieving our goal of allowing technology in the classroom.

Here, we would introduce the topic and briefly discuss why it is a matter of contention. We would lay out the differing perspectives, briefly mention the merits of each argument, and discuss the implications closely considering all perspectives to arrive at a solution that a rogerian argument for everyone. Here, we would introduce the opposing position that digital technology should not be allowed in the writing classroom.

We would also list and discuss their objections to a rogerian argument proposition of technology in the classroom. Here we might provide specific details that lend merit to a rogerian argument argument. We want to show that we are fully considering their claims and not just giving lip service, in the hope that that they will give similar value to our a rogerian argument. We could include statistics, testimony from instructors and students, or a rogerian argument examples from media that support their theory that digital technology can indeed be a distraction during instruction.

Here, a rogerian argument, we would introduce our claim that digital technology should be allowed in the writing classroom. We would still want to speak as objectively as possible in order to establish our ethos as concerned but unbiased speaker.

We might even qualify our position by acknowledging that there are, of course, a rogerian argument, situations in which technology should be put away, but reiterate that, generally speaking, the presence of digital technology is a positive. For example, a rogerian argument, we could gather testimony from students who claim that using these technologies in class has been beneficial. We could include research and scholarship that supports our position and even quote instructors who have developed pedagogy around these technologies.

We might even subtly demonstrate that our opposition has failed to account for all possibilities by choosing our examples carefully, a rogerian argument. For instance, we could easily include accounts of students with learning disabilities who might otherwise have a difficult time succeeding in class without the help of assistive technologies, a rogerian argument.

We would acknowledge that some instructors do not want digital technologies present in the classroom, as they believe they distract from paying attention during lectures. We would maintain, however, that these technologies can indeed be productive tools for learning—in some cases, they can even be a virtual requirement for learning. We could then offer a solution: that these digital technologies should be kept aside during lecture portions of a lesson except in the case of students with documented disabilities.

This way, students will likely be paying attention, taking notes by hand which they can transcribe later if they so wish.

However, once a class moves from lecture to activity whether group or individualstudents should be allowed to access these technologies to more effectively engage with the activity, organize their thoughts, and access information. Now that the instructor is no longer lecturing, it should be easier to monitor student progress and engagement and the use of technology for these activities will lead to more developed and better organized results from the students.

Find Info For Find Info For Academics Admissions Current Students Athletics About Careers Prospective Students Research and Partnerships Quick Links Apply News President Shop Visit Give Emergency. Purdue A rogerian argument Writing Lab College of Liberal Arts. Writing Lab Purdue OWL Research Contact Site Map. General Writing Academic Writing Historical Perspectives on Argumentation.

Welcome to the Purdue OWL This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. Rogerian Argument The Rogerian argument or Rogerian rhetoric is a form of argumentative reasoning that aims to establish a middle ground between parties with opposing viewpoints or goals. Contents Again, there is no formalized structure for the Rogerian argument, though the following example provides a foundation for considering how you might structure your own argument. Introduction Here, we would introduce the topic and briefly discuss why it is a matter of contention.

Opposing position Here, we would introduce the opposing position that a rogerian argument technology should not be allowed in the writing classroom. Context for opposing position Here we might provide specific details that lend merit to their argument. Your Position Here, we would introduce our claim that digital technology should be allowed in the writing classroom.

Rogerian Argument

, time: 5:29

Rogerian Argument - Writing Commons

What is a Rogerian Argument? A Rogerian essay presents a contentious topic using an impartial language to establish common ground and arrive at an agreement. A student identifies a problem from diverse perspectives and comes up with a suitable solution 1/10/ · Rogerian argument is a negotiating strategy in which common goals are identified and opposing views are described as objectively as possible in an effort to establish common ground and reach an agreement. It is also known as Rogerian rhetoric, Rogerian argumentation, Rogerian persuasion, and empathic blogger.com by: 11/12/ · In other words, the Rogerian argument looks at the idea from different sides and does not categorically deny any of them. There is always a golden middle or common ground for different beliefs. Rogerian rhetoric is a problem-solving technique based on seeking common ground instead of conflicting. Every essay writing dilemma/10()