This article analyzes the speeches of two U.S. politicians—President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden—to present how they make their arguments about climate change using various frames. While frames are rhetorical acts, they are also a form of persuasion. In particular, the author demonstrates how Trump foregrounded negative frames with fear-inducing elements. He presented job losses and economic harm as consequences of joining the Paris Climate Accord, putting him on the defensive. In contrast, Biden utilized positive frames to strengthen his arguments and aligned more closely with the environmental justice framework. Inspired by the rhetoric of the framing strategies employed by these two speakers, the study suggests that technical communicators should focus on using language that constructs new frames to enhance the success of their argumentations.

This article describes a graduate seminar on Content Strategy taught in the Fall of 2020 during the height of the COVID pandemic. Students worked totally online with a real client to develop a content strategy plan. This class was noteworthy because, unlike most classes that end up designing a logo, identity package, and look-n-feel approach to content strategy, this course ended up focusing on the much-overlooked emphasis on governance in an already well-established content strategy plan. Students conducted a persona research study (using Redish's approach) and built a UX journey map (using Kalbach's approach). They conducted a content audit (using Halverson's approach) and then used the data to determine what problems in content development really needed to be solved. These analyses showed that the client's principal needs actually dealt with governance issues rather than logos, branding, and content, so students researched and recommended suitable governance systems (primarily following Welchman's approach). Finally, they produced templates, sample content, and a content development plan for PCLS based on the new governance model provided.

Rhetorical theory has frequently relied on metaphors of place and positioning as heuristics to build better arguments. This article utilizes one such metaphor, that of stasis theory, as a method by which we might change the terrain of the conversation surrounding the climate crisis. As an example, the author does a rhetorical analysis of a recent agricultural report from the Indiana Climate Change Impacts Assessment and finds that, rather than using traditional questions of conjecture and quality, the authors of the report focus on questions of procedure and definition to reframe the discussion surrounding the climate crisis. Drawing from the rhetoric in this report, the author suggests that technical communicators might similarly produce more fruitful conversations around the climate crisis if they focus on what to do (procedure) and redefining the crisis as a local issue (definition).

Oral presentations are a common genre in technical and business communication courses. While it is important for students to develop a professional ethos when presenting information, in this article I argue that textbooks’ discussion of professional dress and voice privilege cisgendered bodies and erase the differences and bodily experiences that transgendered individuals face. This may cause dissonance in trans students who may come to believe that they must choose between their genders and being professional.

This essay expands Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s concept of argumentation by model to bring more attention to the persuasive effects of using the self as a model. To illuminate this technique, I analyze the personal narratives of popular health coaches, who are championing a holistic health movement toward what I refer to as “do-it-yourself healthcare.” This case involves arguments regarding the efficacy of methods in evidence-based medicine and “alternative” or holistic health, as popular health coaches predicate their ability to heal themselves and others on abandoning traditional medicine. In brief, the purpose of this article is twofold: first, to characterize the rhetoric of the movement toward alternative or holistic health, and, second, to extend Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s concept of argumentation by model and address the implications of this expansion.

This article combines an adaptation of the Toulmin model of argument with a framework designed to analyze assertions of technology-related expertise in order to examine how expert witnesses fulfill the legal requirements for explaining the methodology underlying their testimony within the combative and sometimes prejudicial conditions of the courtroom environment. Its findings support previous claims about contributions technical communication scholars can make to the legal field.

In a society in which expertise becomes increasingly specialized, we need to understand how to manage gaps in knowledge between experts in various fields and between experts and the public in general. That need is especially great in the public sphere, where technical understanding and lived experience do not always align. This study attempts to model the process by which discipline-specific topoi filter into common knowledge and general topoi are acknowledged by experts. It first addresses the issue of expertise in complex rhetorical places, then employs Michel Meyer's reinterpretation of ethos, pathos, and logos to show how experts and non-experts in such places negotiate rhetorical relationships. The study then explores the social and rhetorical mechanisms by which ideas become commonplaces, building on the established theory of symbolic convergence. Finally, the study demonstrates proof in principle with a brief analysis of one topos in the Reports of the Immigration Commission (1911).

The Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) offers treatment to sex offenders civilly confined after they complete their prison sentences. In this article, we enhance the notion of kairos in rhetorical situations with the perceptions of risk and the sociological concept of moral panic by tracing three kairotic moments involving MSOP: the 1992 Dennis Linehan civil commitment case; the 2003 murder of college student Dru Sjodin; and the 2012 provisional discharge of Clarence Opheim. We examine the political, public, and media response to these events and provide the results of 21 interviews with stakeholders. In doing so, we hope to illustrate how moral panic and risk perception can so influence what seems the right choice at the right time that stakeholders may get caught in what we call kairotic cycles, where solutions to a problem are stymied by competing perceptions and by entrenched positions that reoccur over time and without resolution.

Large institutions, like hospitals and juvenile mental health facilities, are often places where members from several different professions come to interact and negotiate ideological differences. This study explores the authorial identities of some of these members in the electronic charts of a large juvenile mental health facility. These charts portray their authors' ethos as that which is fluid and variable, craftily moving between the neutral observer status of scientific rhetoric and the expert blame-shifter of social work rhetoric. I argue that these multi-disciplinary identities are best understood when using a rhetorical frame of métis, a rarely studied rhetorical strategy.

This study traces Renaissance and post-Renaissance technical writers' use of classical rhetoric in English instruction manuals on the sport of falconry. A study of the period's five prominent falconry manuals written by four authors—George Turberville, Simon Latham, Edmund Bert, and Richard Blome—reveals these technical writers' conscious use of classical rhetoric as an important technique to persuade readers to accept these authors' authority and trust the information they were disseminating. These manuals employed several classical rhetorical techniques: invention by using ethos and several classical topics, classical arrangement, the plain style, and adaptation of the orator's duties. The explanation for this classical influence rests in the authors' own knowledge of classical rhetoric derived from sources such as Thomas Wilson, as well as the sources from whom these authors obtained their knowledge of falconry. The article ends by suggesting the origins through which these classical rhetorical techniques influenced the writing of the manuals.

This article analyzes the impact of the design of the Medicare handbook and website on individuals' ability to make effective decisions about prescription drug coverage. The article summarizes Medicare Part D, discusses the characteristics of potential enrollees, and provides an overview of document-based decision making. It uses a rhetorical framework to evaluate the Medicare documents as decision-making tools, arguing that design flaws hinder users'understanding, discourage them from taking appropriate action, and negatively shape perceptions of ethos. The article concludes by discussing implications for functional documents more generally, underscoring the importance of a design cycle that is both user-centered and performance-centered.

Steven Katz's “The Ethic of Expediency” has become a reference point for discussions of ethics since its 1992 publication. Previously, this author assessed Katz's rhetorical analysis of Nazi technical communication against current research on the Holocaust and noted that scholarship suggests ideology rather than technological expediency as its motivating force. Yet implicit in the author's critique are two remaining questions, namely: What other rhetorical interpretations may be possible of the SS technical memo analyzed by Katz? And is Katz, who makes broad generalizations about Western rhetoric based on a single document, supported by examples of other Nazi technical communications? This article explores alternate interpretations of the SS memo suggested by the arguments of Rivers and Moore; presents the author's view that the Katz thesis decontextualizes the memo and that historical context argues for a primarily ideological ethos; and reviews sources for English translations of other Nazi documents.

Since 1992, Steven Katz's “The Ethic of Expediency” on the rhetoric of technical communication during the Holocaust has become a reference point for discussions of ethics. But how does his thesis compare to current understandings of the Holocaust? As this article describes, Katz was in step with the trend two decades ago to universalize the lessons of the genocide but his thesis presents key problems for Holocaust scholars today. Against his assertion that pure technological expediency was the ethos of Nazi Germany, current scholarship emphasizes the role of ideology. Does that invalidate his thesis? Katz's analysis of rhetoric and his universalizing application to the Holocaust are two claims that may be considered separately. Yet even if one does not agree that “expediency” is inherent in Western rhetoric, Katz has raised awareness that phronesis is socially constructed so that rhetoric can be unethically employed. Thus, rather than remain an uncritically accepted heuristic for technical communicators, “The Ethic of Expediency” can be a starting point for ongoing exploration into the ethical and rhetorical dimensions of the genre.

Phishing e-mails deceive individuals into giving out personal information which may then be utilized for identity theft. One particular type, the Personal Solicitation E-mail (PSE) mimics personal letters—modern perversions of ars dictaminis (the classical art of letter writing). In this article, I determine and discuss 19 appeals common to the PSE. These appeals were established first by conducting generative rhetorical analysis, then by volunteer coding, on 170 e-mails collected over a 12-month period. After defining these categories, I show how these letters are excellent twenty-first century teaching tools for pathos-based argumentation, logical appeals, the creation of ethos, and kairos in the development of perceived exigency.

Current scholarship tells us that skills in teaming are essential for students and practitioners of professional communication. Writers must be able to cooperate with subject-matter experts and team members to make effective decisions and complete projects. Scholarship also suggests that rapid changes in technology and changes in teaming processes challenge workplace communication and cooperation. Professional writers must be able to use complex software for projects that are often completed by multidisciplinary teams working remotely. Moreover, as technical writers shift from content developers to project managers, our responsibilities now include user-advocacy and supervision, further invigorating the need for successful communication. This article offers a different vision of an ancient heuristic—stasis theory—as a solution for the teaming challenges facing today's professional writers. Stasis theory, used as a generative heuristic rather than an eristic weapon, can help foster teaming and effective decision making in contemporary pedagogical and workplace contexts.

Pedagogical and scholarly representations of collaborative writing and knowledge construction in technical communication have traditionally recognized consensus as the logical outcome of collaborative work, even as scholars and teachers have acknowledged the value of conflict and “dissensus” in the process of collaborative knowledge building. However, the conflict-laden work product of a Denver task force charged with recommending changes to the city police department's use-of-force policy and proposing a process for police oversight retains the collaborative group's dissensus and in doing so, illustrates an alternative method of collaborative reporting that challenges convention. Such an approach demonstrates a dissensus-based method of reporting that has the potential to open new rhetorical spaces for collaborative stakeholders by gainfully extending collaborative conversations and creating new opportunities for ethos development, thus offering scholars, teachers, and practitioners a way of reimagining the trajectory and outcome of collaborative work.

This article describes a study that examined the tables and figures in articles from a basic research journal, The Journal of Cell Biology, and compared them to tables and figures from an applied medical journal, The New England Journal of Medicine. Comparison of graphics between the two journals shows sharp differences in terms of range of graphics types, visual consistency within and between articles, or use of color. As the articles take into account what is needed by different audiences, the graphics help to build the credibility of the journal. The study also addresses the question of how scientific visuals contribute to the persuasiveness of a writer, looking at how the graphics within an article affect the credibility or ethos of the writer.

Arguments manifest in scientific visuals through graphic representation, content placement, and overall document structure. These arguments, designed to influence public perception, change over time in relation to sociopolitical climate. Analysis of a series of documents constructed deliberately to influence perception can help to determine patterns of argumentation and perceived exigencies. In this article, four self-guided tour brochures produced for distribution to visitors to the Glen Canyon Dam in 1977, 1984, 1990, and 1993 are analyzed in order to identify rhetorical strategies designed to influence public perceptions of the dam site, and examine how public perception of the dam, and related argumentation, is structured by sociopolitical climate.

This article presents a qualitative text analysis of persuasive documents written by a major U.S. airline in a 2004 counter-campaign against the Teamsters union. The methodology for this study is based on Stephen Toulmin's argument model, including his “double triad” and his interpretation of artistic proofs, which parallel the three classical rhetorical appeals. Actual corporate documents are featured in this article, supported by content from management conference calls that were attended by the researchers. The article concludes with implications for teaching and research in the field of technical and professional communication.

Americans contribute $240 billion dollars to charities each year, raised in part by writing letters to potential donors. While it is debatable what the reasons are for donors to give so much money, most donors seem to be moved to contribute by pathos, particularly pity. The concept of pathos as a rhetorical appeal has become more complex over the years, growing from a simple strategy to a complicated set of parameters requiring careful delineation. Beginning with the Greeks, particularly Aristotle, pathos was defined with greater clarity (especially the concept of enargia), with Aristotle's formal definitions of the emotions, and with the use of an image upon which to direct the audience's pity. Cicero adds to the theory by calling for the use of pathos in the peroration and reinforcing Aristotle's emphasis on careful audience analysis. St. Augustine and those who follow, including Renaissance, 18th-century rhetoricians, and 20th-century scholars like Kenneth Burke, argue that style can also be an effective persuasive strategy for a pathetic appeal. Accordingly, the charity letters examined illustrate not only Aristotle's and Cicero's tenets but also show that elements of style, particularly rhetorical figures and schemes, are common rhetorical strategies used in these charity letters. While at first the rhetoric of charity letters seems simple and straight-forward, to raise billions of dollars every year charity letters use sophisticated appeals to pity that have a long and interesting history.

In this article, I present findings from a discourse analysis of an often-overlooked genre of technical communication, regulatory writing. The study focuses on post-bellum regulations that disproportionately affected African Americans and the historical contexts in which the regulations were written. Historically, African Americans of all socioeconomic backgrounds have maintained an implicit mistrust of government regulations and the government officials who write them. The justification for this mistrust is deeply rooted in the fact that for decades regulations were not written to protect the rights of African Americans nor was their input considered in regulatory writing. In Communicating Across Cultures, Stella Ting-Toomey argues, “if conflict parties do not trust each other, they tend to move away (cognitively, affectively and physically) from each other rather than struggle side by side in negotiation” [1, p. 222]. This study reveals rhetorical strategies used in historical regulatory writing that may still impact the ethos of regulatory writers.

This article uses Chaim Perelman's theories of argumentation to examine a recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, Promoting Health: Intervention Strategies from Social and Behavioral Research (2000). The IOM's text explores social and behavioral research to devise multipronged intervention strategies; it focuses on social, economic, behavioral, and political health as a means of assuring population health—and thereby expands the conventional boundaries of public health. Since Chaim Perelman's rhetoric is seldom applied in the field of health communication, employing his ideas to consider the role of style, arrangement, and argument in such a cutting-edge document can illuminate public health writing, as well as shed new light on Perelmanian rhetoric.

Within a theoretical context of speech accommodation theory, this study follows Lambert et al.‘s (1960) “matched-guise” technique. Seventy-two African-American students at a mid-south university listened to and evaluated a tape-recorded excerpt of a speech given by Jesse Jackson at the 1996 Democratic National Convention. The first version of the speech was translated into Ebonics. After students listened to the first four-minute speech in Ebonics, students then proceeded to answer a questionnaire concerning the ethos/source credibility and perceived sociability of the speaker. Next, students listened to the same audiotaped speech (given by the same speaker), except the text of the speech was translated (and subsequently delivered) in Standard English. The students then rated this second speaker on those same ethos/source credibility and sociability scales. The speaker who used Standard English was viewed as more credible (i.e., more competent and having a strong character) and sociable than the Ebonics speaker. Both of these scores were significant at the p .05 level. Future research replicating these results is urged across other African-American samples.

Studying corporate documents provides clues to the larger philosophy of the organization. This article explores a sales document redesign that indicates a subtle shift in ideology for a women's clothing company. The corporation uses direct sales to market clothes to a variety of women. In one season, the documents change from relatively outdated designs to more updated, professional layouts. However, the content of the documents changes very little. The author contends that the document redesign indicates a move to a more feminist outlook for the company and uses the concept of ethos to describe how the document design represents a slowly changing ethos for the corporation. A specific content shift towards feminism is, however, less apparent.

The redefinition of logos as an appeal to logic is a mistaken association found all too often in the technical communication classroom. Logic inheres in all three proofs of persuasion; moreover, Aristotle used logos within the context of classical rhetoric to refer to the argument or speech itself. In this light, the proofs of persuasion represent the set of all logical means whereby the speaker can lead a “right-thinking” audience to infer something. If that something is an emotion, the appeal is to pathos; if it is about the character of the speaker, the appeal is to ethos; and if it is about the argument or speech itself, the appeal is to logos. This interpretation reinstates all three proofs of persuasion as legitimate, logical means to different proximate ends and provides a coherent definition of logos, consonant with Aristotle's Rhetoric, to the next generation of technical communicators.

This analysis is a specific study that investigates the role ethos plays in the scientific papers of American glacial geologists. Five articles, spanning the time period 1839–1988, a time period which saw the tentative beginnings, development, and maturation of glacial research and theory, were analyzed to determine the rhetorical strategies the writers used to establish their particular research and writing as being good science worthy of recognition and acceptance by their communities of glacial geologists. Early articles were written to portray the author's notion of good science as a strict attention to personal observation and analogy. Articles in the middle period continued to stress personal observation, but also appealed to the observations of other workers. The most contemporary articles favored quantified relationships and precise measurement.

Ironically, just doing the right thing is often easier than organizing one's thoughts and arguments concerning an ethical issue. This article examines a legalistic model for ethical argumentation proposed in this journal by T. M. Sawyer and finds it to have serious problems and limitations. Also illustrated is how argument from analogy is better suited to the task of discovering and presenting well-defended ethical positions.

In trying to project a positive corporate image and financial health in their annual reports, companies too often confuse and alienate readers with rhetorical smoke and statistical mirrors. Through a more complete understanding of their audiences and by applying effective rhetorical principles to reach those audiences, corporations can both meet the informational needs of report readers and promote a positive and accurate corporate ethos.

Based upon several years of research on proposal writing in large management consulting firms, this article attempts to define the proposal genre and argue the importance of the background section, especially in the management consulting environment. Because the background is the first major section in these proposals, it offers writers the opportunity to demonstrate implicitly their qualifications as problem solvers long before a qualifications section does so explicitly. That demonstration, the projection of image and ethos, can occur logically—through an argument that responds to the generic requirements of proposals, and psychologically—through the incorporation of themes that respond to the rhetorical situation.

Cybernetics, the “science” relating the modus operandi of computing machines to man, has fostered a number of myths that cloud the way we talk about computers. And even though these cybernetics myths are not always taken seriously by the philosopher, engineer, or computer programmer, a misleading and imprecise vocabulary of computer logorrhea has evolved which threatens to obscure man's ability to use the electronic computing machine as a tool. This paper represents an inquiry into the roots of several cybernetics-related misconceptions and some of the consequent anthropomorphic nonsense and grammatical falacies which permeate our thinking and our language.

The schism between theory and practice is reflected in English studies. British technological universities have attempted to meet the needs of industry in technical fields. Economic and academic pressures often make this difficult. A degree in modern English studies is planned which attempts to combine traditional academic values and functional needs. A new approach to rhetoric combining linguistic and critical disciplines with practical skills in communication can combine liberal and vocational needs. The course content of the degree and the teaching approach is related to the ethos of a technological university.