Double-Entry Research Log

[#1]

Assignment by Laura Hardin Marshall, Bedford New Scholar 2022

Double-Entry Research Log

Objectives

Leading up to the dissoi logoi research project, our class discussions and readings will explore various ways people develop and compose their perspectives (or arguments) around certain issues. Who are the stakeholders? What do they care about? What information or claims do they find most compelling? How do writers and communicators convey that information and/or shape their arguments? 

You’ll explore these questions and more throughout the course, but to get started, I’d like you to keep a careful log and take notes about the in-class and external research you conduct over the first half of the semester. You’ll use a double-entry research log in the style of Ann E. Berthoff’s Forming, Thinking, Writing, where you’ll not only identify key pieces of information about your research but also respond and react to that information. This log will help you become habituated to the academic practices of citation and summary but also in recognizing that quotes and paraphrases are not artifacts that exist in a bubble—they are meant to be handled and talked about!

Logistics

Your research log needs to include the following items (see example on reverse):

1. The source formatted according to your preferred citation format (likely APA or MLA; see the Purdue OWL as needed)
2. A 100-word summary of the source’s content - remember, summaries encapsulate the purpose and main idea! Note: Fill this in after you’ve read the article and chosen/reflected on your quotes. Avoid using the word “about” (e.g., “this article is about rhetoric”) and instead give specific details about the author’s argument and claims.
3. Three screenshots of key quotations from the source, accompanied by three responses, one for each quotation. Remember: Use screenshots instead of copying and pasting your quotes. I want to see your quotes in context! (This will come into play later when we start practicing paraphrasing.) Note: Select your screenshots and write your responses as you read. What are your initial reactions and impressions? Once you’re finished with the piece, is there something you want to add to or amend about your initial impressions? Add it to your response! 

Checkpoints

We’ll talk about the class readings and your research throughout the start of the semester, but be prepared for me to check your log’s current state every two weeks. Final due date = [TBD].

Your log should look something like this:                                                                                                                   

Foss, Sonja K., and Cindy L. Griffin. "Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric." Communication Monographs, vol. 62, Mar. 1995, pp. 2-18.
Foss and Griffin address the patriarchal conceptions of rhetoric as dominating and forceful, the effort to impose power and will on another. They then propose a different sort of rhetoric, invitational rhetoric, in which rhetors offer ideas and perspectives but not with the intent to persuade or change the audience but with an intent to promote understanding and to provide information about the rhetor's perspective. Such an airing of perspectives might result in new understanding and changed perspectives, but change is not the intent or goal. Welcoming and inclusion to promote understanding is the objective.
Quotation (page)	Response
"rhetoric has been defined as the conscious intent to change others" (2) [screenshot]	As with all things, change can be either positive or negative, so what’s the issue? The purpose of writing is to affect change around us; we write to both ourselves and others to attempt to make something happen. Composition is change. Amendment: I see now their issue with “change”; it’s not so much the act of change in general but in imposing that change on others through rhetoric.
Rhetoric historically has been driven by the "desire for control and domination" (3) [screenshot]	Okay, so power and control are the issue here. Forcing change on others, imposing one’s will on others, that’s how Foss and Griffin see rhetoric as it’s been used historically. When we attempt to persuade others, it’s not necessarily a benign or benevolent act but instead can be an attempt to dominate others (colonialism, much?).
…

Blank template: 

Quotation (page)	Response