Epideictic Rhetoric Born Digital: Evolution of the Letter of Recommendation Genre

Elizabeth Tomlinson West Virginia University ; Sara Newman Kent State University

Abstract

The letter of recommendation (LOR) plays a significant role in the application process for many professional positions, offering descriptive rather than quantitative information from a third party about an individual’s potential fit within the hiring organization. Such letters, however, increasingly appear online, emphasizing existing problems within the genre and creating others involving trust, reliability, and confidentiality. Typically, the response has been that such digitization of the LOR minimizes its significance or standardizes it. This article analyzes the digital LOR genre as an exemplar of epideictic rhetoric situated within a Perelmanian framework and demonstrates how the digital LOR operates rhetorically, enhancing the adherence between candidate, writer, audience, and institutional values and providing a means of evaluating candidate fit. The article also offers a rhetorical heuristic that captures how audiences can more fruitfully read the epideictic, digital LOR, thereby demonstrating how to optimize the digital platform’s benefits and still use the LOR to its best rhetorical advantage.

Journal
Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Published
2018-01-01
DOI
10.1177/1050651917729862
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

References (48) · 4 in this index

  1. About, us. (2016). LinkedIn. Retrieved from https://www.LinkedIn.com/about-us?trk=hp-about
  2. Adams S. (2012, 2 8). Everything you need to know about LinkedIn recommendations. Forbes. Retrieved from http…
  3. Rhetoric Review
  4. On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse
  5. Rhetoric Review
Show all 48 →
  1. 10.1037/0003-066X.39.1.29
  2. 10.1080/00335636109382490
  3. 10.1177/0018726702553002
  4. 10.1080/01463378509369608
  5. Philosophy & Rhetoric
  6. Documentary letters of recommendation in Latin from the Roman Empire
  7. Airman
  8. 10.1023/B:BTTJ.0000047585.06264.cc
  9. Educational Testing Service. (2010). PPI_Sample_Score_Report. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/Media/Produc…
  10. Educational Testing Service. (2013). Frequently asked questions about the ETS® Personal …
  11. Rhetorical style: The uses of language in persuasion
  12. 10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100023
  13. 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1998.tb02670.x
  14. Chaim Perelman
  15. 10.1037/0735-7028.32.6.655
  16. Hughes L. (5 2016). Your LinkedIn profile. Administrative Assistant’s Update, 3. Retrieved from http://search…
  17. 10.1207/s15328023top2102_3
  18. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1983.tb01441.x
  19. Communication Research Trends
  20. 10.1177/0013164408322031
  21. 10.1037/a0016539
  22. 10.1002/acp.2930
  23. Maurer R. (2015). Are LinkedIn recommendations and endorsements reliable? Retrieved from www.shrm.org/hrdisci…
  24. McGuire M. (2013). Commemoration in 140 characters: How Twitter is remediating how we commemorate resonant ev…
  25. 10.1037/0735-7028.19.1.115
  26. National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2014). Student use and perceived effectiveness of social net…
  27. 10.1525/rh.2002.20.1.1
  28. 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00453.x
  29. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation
  30. 10.1002/lary.23866
  31. 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00012-4
  32. Prodromou T. (2015). Ultimate series: Ultimate guide to LinkedIn for business (2). Irvine, CA: Entrepreneur P…
  33. 10.1080/00221546.1976.11774065
  34. 10.1300/J001v16n02_04
  35. 10.1007/s11199-007-9291-4
  36. 10.1207/s15328023top2501_3
  37. 10.1017/CBO9780511557842
  38. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  39. 10.1023/A:1022962814637
  40. 10.1177/0957926503014002277
  41. 10.1177/0163443712468605
  42. Rhetoric Review
  43. Journal of College Admission