Talk:Rogerian argument

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 12 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hashoush12, LeoParrott, Abcaitlinab, Johnguillory.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Carlrogers.jpg

The image File:Carlrogers.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple changes

The biographical information about Carl Rogers does not belong on this page, but rather on the page for Carl Rogers, this page links to his biographical page. The section on criticisms seemed inappropriate for a wikipedia article. The word "enthymeme" did not help to explain what is an "adversial form of debate", in fact if the reader doesn't understand what is an adverserial form of debate, they are unlikely to know what "enthymeme" means and will not be helped by reading the wikipedia page in the link. Since the comment about being mostly used in written discourse had no citation and seems baseless, I deleted the comment.John Lawrence (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethos, pathos, and logos

Removed ethos, pathos, and logos because their inclusion suggested that they are not used in Rogerian argument, that they are unique to Aristotelian argument. In fact, they can and are employed frequently in Rogerian argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.217.208 (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The In-practice section

The bullets have a non-encyclopedic tone — Preceding unsigned comment added by VivaLaPandaz (talk • contribs) 00:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Spring 2021 student proposed edits and discussion

Origin

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. Scholars like Anatol Rapoport began to notice how effective Rogers’ method was and implemented it in their various agendas, such as peace activism. Rogers’ idea was then constructed to fit into the academic community specifically in rhetoric. Professors Richard E. Young, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike used the foundational theory of Rogers and adapted it to be used for rhetorical use. Young, Becker, and Pike explained 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 Argument became popular and other scholars such as Maxine Hairston began to write articles about this emerging topic.

In-practice section

When using such techniques, it’s important for audiences to understand your opponent empathetically. In other words, to stand in the shoes of another and see the world from their vantage point.  

1. Start a Rogerian Argument explaining how the issue affects both their own and the opponent's position without any criticism or bias.
2. Describe the opposing view with context. The goal of a Rogerian Argument is to reduce threats, which paves the way for reasonable discussion. One can accomplish this by showing that the opponent's position is understood.
3. Explain what reasons one has for choosing their side by using common ideas and beliefs to persuade their reader or opponent to step into the opposite viewpoint.
4. Find common ground on what they and their opponent can negotiate on.

Source: Guo, Yanling; Kroll, Bryant (March 2014). "A Review of Studies on Rogerian Rhetoric" (PDF). Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 4: 418-488. Hashoush12 (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Australian scholar of rhetoric Lili Paquet claims that social media is not the most effective platform for Rogerian Augmentation because it divorces the speaker from the audience when empathy is a needed component of the approach. Additionally she shares that social media often leads to polarized and impersonal discussions and also limits the amount of information that can be conveyed.

Explanation for above paragraph: We want to add the above two sentences to the in-practice section but open to suggestions. Hashoush12 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hashoush12: The page numbers you provided in the inline citations at the end of those two sentences don't correspond to anything that would support the sentences; in fact, there is no p. 169 in the article. An accurate page number is needed to verify what you claim Paquet said. I just skimmed Paquet's article, and I think you may have misinterpreted what she wrote. On p. 161 she wrote: "The lack of open communication between Aly and his audience provoked negative responses on the social media platforms of Twitter and Facebook." This is a claim about a particular case involving Waleed Aly; she was not claiming that social media necessarily impedes empathy in general. In fact, she wrote on p. 163: "There have been some social media movements against racism that have been relatively successful. They are examples of Rogerian argumentation in Australia, where the audience is flipped so that empathy is offered to those on the receiving end of racist rhetoric."

Much of Paquet's article is a case study that analyzes the particular case and draws conclusions about it, which could be summarized as: Waleed Aly seriously botched his attempt at Rogerian-like argument; he tried to persuade others to engage in Rogerian-like communication but did not "give practical steps" about how to do it (p. 164); he did not "provide a clear, practical approach for change" (p. 165).

Where Paquet discussed the limitations of Rogerian argument in general, she repeated arguments made by Ede (1984) and Lassner (1990) earlier, as Paquet herself pointed out, though it may be worth mentioning in the article that Paquet extended Lassner's arguments about the limitations of Rogerian rhetoric to examples of other kinds of discrimination, especially racism and Islamophobia. Biogeographist (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, did you watch the video that Paquet is criticizing in her paper? I watched the video, and I agree with Paquet that in general its argument is a mess. However, there is a clever non-Rogerian moment in the video that Paquet doesn't mention (unless I overlooked it): Right after the Gravitron scene, Aly says "... and eventually someone's sick—and this is what that looks like" and then cuts to a clip of his opponent, Sonia Kruger. Calling your opponent "sick" is not very Rogerian! (Can you imagine a Rogerian therapist saying to a client, "Your problem is that you're a sick person"? Perhaps. But that's not a "Rogerian" moment.) But here's the clever part: Immediately after that clip of Kruger, Aly comes back and says "Now, I could sit here and refute Sonia Kruger's statement ..." and then he rapidly gives a list of counterarguments to her arguments. He is pretending not to refute her arguments while providing all the counterarguments that refute her arguments. So Aly is not doing pure Rogerian argument. He is slyly refuting the opponent before doing the Rogerian-like performance. Biogeographist (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Limitations

(ADD PREFACE) Scholars debating Rogerian argument often note limitations in regards to the validity of anger, as well as its usefulness in spaces, such as war or the Judiciary, where such emotions cannot be beneficially or fairly utilized. Spaces that advocate for marginalized communities, such as the Feminist movement, also acknowledge how neutralizing an argument is considered comparable to being silenced, stating that Rogerian rhetoric often denies the importance of feelings or morals inherent to certain arguments.

Australian scholar of rhetoric Lili Paquet states that Rogerian Argumentation cannot be effectively used when speaking from a marginalized position to their opponent when discussing discrimination. This is not only true for the Feminist movement, but also in use against racism and Islamophobia. Those with a minority viewpoint suffer from a power imbalance that is created from the requirement of neutrality in Rogerian arguments.

Furthermore, she claims that social media is not the most effective platform for Rogerian Argumentation because it divorces the speaker from the audience when empathy and collaboration is a needed component of the approach. She shares how social media often leads to personal discussions and also limits the amount of information that can be conveyed. Hashoush12 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: I have found a cleaner version of the Paquet article and have corrected my citations. I do agree that the article is primarily a case analysis of the Waleed Aly #SendForgivenessViral monologue and its effectiveness. However, Paquet uses this case alongside other viewpoints and cases (i.e., Young, Becker, Pike; Ede; Lassner; #illridewithyou) to make the claims I’ve added above. I’ve also moved my section to the limitations section as I believe it better explains the limitations of being neutral and validating opponents in Rogerian Argumentation. Also, she does share how there have been successful movements using social media using Rogerian Argumentation. However, this is to further her point of the audience being a marginalized community rather than one in power. In p. 164, she wrote: “Both #illridewithyou and the “Aussie” posters used an empathic approach toward victims of racial discrimination rather than toward the perpetrators, by highlighting similarities in our history, as well as our mutual need for safety.” As for social media in general, she does state “using this revolutionary medium to respond in neutral and empathic ways to racism is unrealistic” (p. 163). Overall, rather than face-to-face, using social media as Aly did is “part of a slower dialogue across multiple platforms of media including newspaper, television, social media, and now this article” (p. 161). This is why Paquet sees it as lacking as a tool for Rogerian arguments but not impossible.

Furthermore, while I agree that Paquet is highlighting ways that Waleed Aly ‘botched’ his attempt at using Rogerian Argumentation, I’d argue that this would miss a large chuck of what Paquet is trying to explain if summarized this way. Paquet highlights that the “problems of power relations in an empathic argumentation strategy are pertinent to Aly’s “Send Forgiveness Viral,”" (p. 155). as she uses this as a clear example as to why Rogerian Argumentation is not possible for use by marginalized communities. He botched it largely not with terrible Rogerian strategy, but also by his request for minorities (his audience of Muslim Australians) to be using Rogerian Argumentation towards an audience of white Australians or racists. Paquet states this would be more effective if his audience in his request were white Australians. In p. 156, she writes “if the communicator is in a position of power and needs to empathize with a minority viewpoint, it does not work as well when the power relations are reversed” and how Rogerian elements “only work in certain arguments”. This power imbalance is compounded by, as you say, his lack of practical steps and approach for change.

In regards to your mention of how Paquet extends the limitations of Rogerian argument in the topic of racism and Islamophobia, I believe this is a valid highlight of the article and have included this detail in the Limitations section.

I agree that watching Waleed Aly’s monologue showed little “pure Rogerian” argument. Paquet never really mentions this. However, I believe this is what she means when she writes Aly “used an unexpected Rogerian approach of empathy and understanding, and also was framed in the Rogerian argumentation structure as outlined by Young, Becker, and Pike (1970)” (p.152-3) and how Young, Beck, and Pike mention “the writer induces his opponent to listen to his position” (p.154). Paquet then comments Young, Becker, and Pike, according to Ede, don’t even hold true to “pure Rogerian” argumentation, as there are “inherent problems with this approach, as highlighted by calling the audience “opponents”” (p.154). It is contradictory of Roger’s focus on empathy in the same way Aly’s statement of “someone’s sick” is contradictory of Aly’s goal. This is in fact hitting the nail in the head in regards to the point Paquet is making: “Rogerian argumentation is not even truly Rogerian, as argumentation strategies disrupt any real empathic understanding” (p. 156) and it does not take into account power relations. Please let me know your thoughts on my edits! Thank you.Hashoush12 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hashoush12: Your first paragraph that begins Australian scholar... correctly emphasizes what we seem to agree is the main implication of Paquet's case study for Rogerian rhetoric (and thus what is relevant to this Wikipedia article): her extension of the arguments made by Ede (1984) and Lassner (1990) to racism and Islamophobia. The last two sentences of Paquet's abstract say: "This article concludes that Aly's use of Rogerian argumentation is flawed because it places the onus of combatting racism onto victims. Furthermore, Rogerian argumentation models have underlying problems with power relations." That is basically what your first paragraph emphasizes, though the wording could be improved a little.

I am not convinced that Paquet's few comments about social media can be summarized in a general statement for this Wikipedia article. What she says is specific to Aly's case, and even in this case it's not clear "whether he imagines his audience using 'construction' via their social media accounts, or in a more Rogerian face-to-face mediation context" (p. 164). Paquet has no general conclusion about the effectiveness of Rogerian rhetoric in social media.

By the way, I see that I was not clear about the purpose of my second paragraph in my comment above that began with Much of Paquet's article is a case study that analyzes the particular case and draws conclusions about it, which could be summarized as... That paragraph was not intended as a suggestion for what could go in the Wikipedia article nor as a complete summary of Paquet's article. My purpose in that paragraph was merely to point out that much of Paquet's article is a case study of Aly's mistakes. Of course, Paquet identified more mistakes than I mentioned.

My paragraph above about the video was off-topic, as it was just my own observation about the video and doesn't directly address the issue of what should go in the Wikipedia article. Nevertheless, I can't resist making another comment about it: Young, Becker, and Pike emphasized that Rogerian rhetoric is for certain dyadic situations between two parties, not for triadic situations when two parties are addressing each other but are trying to influence a third party such as a jury or audience. I don't recall any writer on Rogerian rhetoric who has disputed that it is for certain dyadic situations. When Aly was refuting Kruger, he was in a triadic situation, not dyadic; he was arguing against Kruger but was trying to influence the audience of the video, not trying to influence Kruger. That aspect of Aly's relationship to Kruger was un-Rogerian in a way that Paquet didn't discuss. I think Paquet's article is a valuable attempt to apply a Rogerian framework to Aly's case while criticizing both the case and the framework, but I also suspect that the way in which Aly's case is not dyadic also limits the applicability of a Rogerian framework to the case. Again, this is not directly relevant to the Wikipedia article, just my digression. Biogeographist (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Vietnam War

Young, Becker, and also Pike pointed out in 1970 that Rogerian argument would be out of place in the typical mandated adversarial criminal procedures of the court system in the United States.

Ede noted in 1984 that the rhetoric textbooks that discussed Rogerian argument dedicated only a few pages to it out of a total of hundreds of pages, so the Rogerian approach is only a small part of theories of rhetoric and argumentation.

Third party mediation / New approaches

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.

Explanation for including new source below: I wanted to include another example that highlighted limitations of Rogerian Argument and included a way of modifying the approach via third party mediation (in this case as a class exercise): LeoParrott (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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 tied to a projection of ourselves. Hawk constructed a group writing assignment for a class using a modified version of Young, Becker, and Pike's approach where they collaborated their ideas on a text to find common ground for the topic. Hawk argues that when removing the "seduction" of proving the other wrong, winning a debate, or even the “will to produce,” for example, then the Rogerian method of argumentation can take on a new form of imaginative rhetoric.

Benefits

(ADD PREFACE) Despite how scholars note that Rogerian argument can give power to oppressive viewpoints, and that it's uses are often irrelevant such as is seen with the Vietnam War, according to Renea Frey, individuals such as Booth, Ratcliffe, Ong, Casaregeola also claim that Rogerian rhetoric helps to build upon and support the "inherent human need to be heard, acknowledged, and understood."

It is also noted by Frey that Rogerian argument, when practiced through Mindfulness, gives individuals the tools needed for reaching wider and more diverse audiences, even providing arguers with conscious ways of connecting with the audiences who are insistent on rejecting outside perspectives, whether that be through "ethics and compassion," or "mutually beneficial solutions."

Frey's regard

In multiple studies done with her students, Frey suggests the importance of listening rhetoric, a concept based on Rogers' teachings of empathy that is meant to highlight the benefits of widening one's viewpoint to extend to the opponent. She discusses how common intellectual thinking creates a divide between the arguer and their audience, and how "connecting empathetically" allows for a broader sense of awareness, therefore also promoting stronger assertions.

She argues that through applying Rogerian tactics and mindful listening practices, when an individual has an understanding of what causes opponents to view ideas in different perspectives, they are better able to create arguments that not only benefit both sides, but reach wider and more diverse audiences. Enforcing arguments does little for mutually beneficial communication, whereas listening provides overwhelmingly positive results when compared to the "desire to master, outwit, or rebut," as well as fulfills our natural need for understanding.

In the activities done with her students, Frey suggests that conflict between arguers, especially when their opinions oppose, often stems from misunderstanding, lack of education, or apathy, and should be recognized as a way to provide greater insight into how one can reach these obstacles. It is with this understanding that arguers can then strengthen their ideas, as well as listen to the other side, recognizing Brown's concept of how "acknowledging" is different from both "approving" and "agreeing," and creating an environment intended for success.

Abcaitlinab (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

ROGERS, CARL R. (1952). "COMMUNICATION: ITS BLOCKING AND ITS FACILITATION". ETC: A Review of General Semantics. 9 (2): 83–88. ISSN 0014-164X.

Kopelman, Shirli (2019). "Tit for Tat and Beyond: The Legendary Work of Anatol Rapoport". doi:10.34891/5FGB-FQ50.

Young, Richard Emerson (1970). Rhetoric: discovery and change. Alton L. Becker, Kenneth L. Pike. New York,: Harcourt, Brace & World. ISBN 0-15-576895-6. OCLC 76890.

Hairston, Maxine (December 1976). "Carl Rogers's Alternative to Traditional Rhetoric". College Composition and Communication. 27 (4): 373. doi:10.2307/356300.

Guo, Yanling; Kroll, Bryant (March 2014). "A Review of Studies on Rogerian Rhetoric" (PDF). Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 4: 418–488 – via Gale Academic Onfile.

Hawk, Byron (1998). Rogerian Rhetoric: Pedagogy and the Ethos of Seduction.

Frey, Renea (2017–2018). "Rhetorics of Reflection: Revisiting Listening Rhetoric through Mindfulness, Empathy, and Nonviolent Communication". The Journal of the Assembly for Expanded Perspectives on Learning: JAEPL. 23: 92–104. ISSN 1085-4630.

"RSA Short: Empathy". Brené Brown. Retrieved 2021-04-26. Abcaitlinab (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abcaitlinab: What is this? Are these proposed edits that you are looking for feedback about? Please explain what your intentions are. There is much that could be said about the text above; here are a few quick observations:

• Every claim should be referenced to a precise page number of a reliable source using an inline citation for text–source integrity. You can see this is true in the current version of the article (except some statements in the lead section that just summarize what is properly referenced later in the article).
• I don't see the point of the rewrite in the "Origin" section above. It just recycles what I already wrote in the article, and not as well as I wrote it, in my opinion. It is good to correct any errors that need to be corrected, but don't rewrite something that another editor wrote that is already fine as it is, just because your teacher gave you an assignment.
• The "In-practice section" above is written in a writing style that is too prescriptive for Wikipedia, for example: "it's important for" and "one should" do this and "they should" do that. This presents opinions as facts, contra Wikipedia's core content policy of neutral point of view. The words to watch page in the manual of style says more about this. Notice that in the current version of the article, whenever the word "should" is used, it is attributed to someone: Rapoport, Dennett, Young et al., Hairston, or Stephens. The ideal here is that Wikipedia describes the opinions that are reported in properly attributed reliable sources, but Wikipedia does not prescribe its own opinions.
• The information about Byron Hawk's paper should not be included. It is an insignificant conference paper. It is not even published, which disqualifies it as a reliable source, and it has had no influence, so discussing it gives it undue weight. Wikipedia presents the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Hawk's views on this topic are not significant, and his paper was not even published.

There is more that I could say, but that may be enough for now. Biogeographist (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hashoush12: Did you read my comment above? Your most recent edits did not address the issues I raised, particularly my second point about the "In-practice section" above. Guo and Kroll (2014) do not posit their own phases; they reiterate three different versions of the phases found in three sources, two of which are already covered in this Wikipedia article. The "In-practice section" above conflates different versions of the phases. It would be helpful to add to the Wikipedia article a summary of the third source that Guo and Kroll cite (Miller 2007), but not to conflate the different versions of the phases (which would be against the Wikipedia policy of no original research). Also, please sign your edits to this talk page; this is a talk page, not a sandbox. Biogeographist (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

In regards of your comments for the In-Practice section I agree. I appreciate your advice for adding a paragraph about the third version of the phases. However I will be working on adding to Ede's Critique. Hashoush12 (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

LeoParrott (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC): Hello Biogeographist I understand that you don't believe Byron Hawk's paper to be a reliable source that provides significant views on Rogerian Argument. I'd like to share some information regarding the source that you may not know.

The Reliable Source Wikipedia page states "The Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." Byron Hawk's paper was reviewed in a "double blind peer reviewed" process by the Conference on College Composition and Communication, a reputable organization that sponsors and conducts research, creates collaborative spaces, develops evidence and practice based resources, and advocates for educators, students and programs that support effective teaching and learning. Hawk's paper qualifies as a reliable source based on the application process and subsequent approval of his paper for presentation at the conference.

Hawk's work was also cited in a published book "Resources in Education, Volume 33, Issue 11" by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Institute of Education in 1998. In this publication, Hawk's work was included as a resource for Reading, English, and Communication.

The paragraph below is the final proposed addition to the Wikipedia page:

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 tied to a projection of ourselves. To demonstrate this point and remedy this limitation, Hawk constructed a group writing assignment for a class using a modified version of Young, Becker, and Pike's approach. The students were put into groups of three, where two of the students were assigned as opposing sides, and one was designated as a mediator. They proceeded to construct a collaborative text while following the four stages of Rogerian format. The project involved face to face discussions, electronic discussions and writing, and ended in a group revision of the text. The group project's main objective was not to negotiate an issue, but to work together and find common ground on the topic. Hawk argues that when removing the "seduction" of proving the other wrong, winning a debate, or even the “will to produce,” for example, then the Rogerian method of argumentation can take on a new form of imaginative rhetoric. Hawk's application serves as an example of the possibilities that exist within new approaches to Rogerian Argument. LeoParrott (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@LeoParrott: Hawk's paper is not a published peer-reviewed paper. It is not an acceptable source. Resources in Education (RIE) is nothing but a list of abstracts of items in the ERIC database. Hawk's paper was listed in RIE because the paper is in the ERIC database. The paper is in the ERIC database because ERIC catalogues all kinds of information (including insignificant information) related to the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC). CCCC has a journal, College Composition and Communication, but Hawk's paper was not published in it. In fact, ERIC marks which papers are peer-reviewed, and Hawk's paper is not one of those papers. You can see this by going to https://eric.ed.gov and checking the "Peer reviewed only" check box, and searching for Hawk's paper. It does not appear in the search results, because it is not peer reviewed. It is an insignificant unpublished paper that does not belong in Wikipedia. Biogeographist (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: All papers presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication (4Cs) are double-blind peer reviewed (see Item 17 on their website), whether that is marked in ERIC or not. This has been the practice for years. The acceptance rate averages about 30% over the years, which is consistent with many published journals and, admittedly, well below the acceptance rate of other journals. If the disagreement is over the credibility of the source, maybe we should go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If the disagreement is about the content of Hawk's work, then let's talk about that. I was not sure if your response of "insignificant" was regarding the venue (4Cs) or the argument he is making. Cathygaborusf (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cathygaborusf: My assessment of its peer reviewed status was based on ERIC's metadata, so if that is wrong then I was wrong. I couldn't otherwise quickly confirm that it was peer reviewed, but the URL you provided suggests that we can assume it was. But there is still the issue of significance: By "insignificant" I mean primarily the influence of the paper: it has not been influential. It has been easily accessible in ERIC for over two decades but the only mention of it that I can find is in a seminarian's thesis (also unpublished) where it appears to serve rather randomly as the author's general source on Rogerian rhetoric, since the author doesn't take any ideas from Hawk that couldn't be found in other sources. Given this general lack of attention to Hawk's paper, it would be undue weight to essentially summarize the whole paper in this Wikipedia article as LeoParrott did above.

Having said all that, let me be slightly less adversarial now and say that I like how Hawk designated a student as a mediator: I think that is a good example of the use of a mediator in "Rogerian" writing. I would not be opposed to a few sentences describing Hawk's use of a mediator. What I still oppose as undue weight is summarizing Hawk's whole paper. Biogeographist (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Above I said I would not be opposed to a few sentences describing Hawk's use of a mediator, but now I have changed my mind about that, because I remembered that Catherine Lamb did a similar class exercise much earlier (reported in Lamb 1991, cited in the Wikipedia article; see pp. 19–21), and her account was both published and very influential, two characteristics that don't apply to Hawk's paper. So what LeoParrott wrote was helpful for pointing out that more could be said about the use of a mediator in "Rogerian" writing, but Hawk is not an appropriate source whereas Lamb would be. Hawk didn't even cite Lamb, and indeed the paucity of the knowledge base in Hawk's paper is another major flaw (and perhaps one reason why nobody has paid attention to it?). Biogeographist (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

In Rogerian argument § Limitations, at the end of the paragraph on Lassner, there is a sentence that begins "In a 1991 article, English professor Catherine Lamb ..." It would be great to insert a paragraph break before that sentence and expand on what Lamb sees as a better alternative to Rogerian argument, including her use of a mediator. Biogeographist (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: I agree with your suggestion to include Lamb's source vs. Hawk's due to its greater influence on Rogerian Argument. Although it's not within my project's current scope to contribute to the limitations section with Lamb's source, I would appreciate seeing you or another editor expand on that topic.

@Biogeographist: Hello, your point that I’m just restating the same information is valid. However, my goal is not to change the information, but to format it in a way that flows better for the reader. When I first read the origin as a reader (before being assigned this topic) I felt like the first sentence was lengthy. It was a lot of information that was being presented in one sentence, which may cause the reader to become overwhelmed. I thought that seperating it into more than one sentence. I believe that what the original author wrote is factual and is important; that is why I am keeping the same information but presenting it differently. Below is my suggested changes: Johnguillory (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

In the study and teaching of rhetoric and argumentation, the term Rogerian argument was popularized in the 1970s and 1980s[1] Scholars began to notice how effective Rogers’ method was and implemented it in their various fields. Anatol Rapoport used Roger's ideas in his peace activism movement.[2] Professors Richard E. Young, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike used the foundational theory of Rogers and adapted it to be used for rhetorical use. Young, Becker, and Pike explained this newly adapted theory in a book they wrote in the 1970s. The book was titled, Rhetoric: Discovery and Change.[3] After this book was published, the term Rogerian Argument became popular and other rhetoric scholars such as Maxine Hairston[4]began to write articles and books about this emerging topic. Johnguillory (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Johnguillory: Thanks, I agree that you have identified a problem with the length of that first sentence in the "Origins" section. But your version overcompensates by making some sentences too short. I think the solution is simpler: Just changing some punctuation and moving a few words around solves the problem. I just made those changes now in this edit. (I also eliminated the term "game theorist" as a descriptor of Rapoport, since that gives the impression that he was more of a theorist than an empirical researcher when he was both: he did extensive empirical psychological research. He's difficult to describe since his work was so wide-ranging, so perhaps "polymath" is the best general descriptor.) I think your version above, while helpful for identifying the problem, is not an improvement because the start is too vague. It's simple to identify a clear start to the popularization of the term Rogerian argument: Young et al.'s book is universally identified as the locus classicus, so to speak, even though it heavily depended on Rapoport's previous work. The sentence is structured on the general principle of introducing familiar information before unfamiliar information: readers already know what Rogerian argument is from the lead section, so we start with that as the subject and a passive verb (instead of starting from Young et al. as the sentence's subject), and then we connect it right away to the book by Young et al. Then we qualify that by noting Rapoport's previous work (even though it came earlier), and then we go on to briefly mention what came later (which is elaborated in more detail in later sections). The current version also strongly emphasizes the places where these people worked because that situates in familiar geographical space what can otherwise sound like a very abstract topic, giving more specificity to the origin of it: not in a disembodied realm of ideas, but in a particular place and time. Biogeographist (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: I have looked at your suggested edit and your above comment. I believe that the suggestions that you have given is on point. I am glad that we have used Rogerian Argument to understand each other's point of view for the betterment of not only the article, but for our readers who is desiring to learn about this topic. Thanks! Johnguillory (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I removed the "Benefits" section that was added to the article. It lacked inline citations to a specific page number for each claim. I pointed out this problem earlier (see above), but it was never fixed. When I started reading the article by Renea Frey to try to verify the claims, I realized right away that the article is not about Rogerian argument. It is about a college course that Frey designed in which she "chose to focus on deep listening, empathy, NVC, and mindfulness exercises that we could do in class and as homework" (p. 95). These are all subjects that have their own Wikipedia articles separate from this one. Frey mentions Rogerian argument only in a couple of sentences, and there is no indication that she teaches or even mentions Rogerian argument in her college course that is the subject of her article. Frey's article may be relevant as a source in some other Wikipedia article on the teaching of rhetoric (and perhaps in the article on nonviolent communication), but it is not specific to the subject of Rogerian argument. Biogeographist (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

References