Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Major Criticism Paper Guidelines - FALL2021
Major Criticism Paper Guidelines - FALL2021
first). Also, include additional unique subheadings within sections to indicate new topic areas (review
Foss, Chapter 2 for details/examples; also review the exemplar essays covered in class as well as those
included at the end of the chapter for your chosen method). In other words, the numbered subsections
within each major section below do not get separate subheadings. I’ve separated them to show you the
main components of each section, but each major section should flow and be organized into coherent
paragraphs with unique subheadings as needed.
*Note: length requirements for each section are approximations—as long as you meet the 10-15
page total length requirement, I am not overly concerned with lengths of specific sections (except
the analysis, which should be at least 3 pages)
A. Title Page: Include a unique, informative title (i.e., creative wording that tells the reader what your
paper is about—do not call your paper “Final Research Paper.”), your name(s), and your affiliation,
which should be California State University, Long Beach. That’s all. Nothing more; nothing less.
B. Introduction: ~2-4 pages*
1. This is the section where you should be most creative because your task is to entice your
reader. Thus, it can be organized in a multitude of ways depending on your topic/artifact. You
could use deductive reasoning (broad to narrow), inductive reasoning (narrow to broad), or
something else. Common strategies begin by demonstrating a problem through including
personal narratives, startling statistics, representative quotations, multiple examples to
demonstrate a pattern, brief histories, etc. In many cases, it may not be wise to reveal your
specific artifact right away—making the reader wait until the Description section builds
suspense (deductive). Though, in some cases, revealing your artifact immediately may be
appropriate (inductive). Your choice!
2. Exigence and rationale: Establish the importance and relevance of this topic as rhetoric.
Usually this will stem from what is unusual, different, problematic, popular, or pervasive about
the topic. In other words, what makes it worthy of analysis? What is critically or conceptually
or popularly intriguing about your topic? Importantly, identify the problem/need that gives rise
to the discourse in the first place—i.e., what rhetorical situation/exigence prompted your
artifact’s creation/existence? (the problem/need may also be discussed in your justification
below). How, for example, does your artifact speak to larger social controversies or problems
occurring in the United States or elsewhere? Use research/sources (not necessarily scholarly) to
help you develop a rationale for your paper. Answer the “so what” question. You will likely
state your research question in this section (or perhaps in the Description section below), most
commonly after you’ve justified the importance of the topic. If this is done well, your rationale
should lead right into your RQ (i.e., …thus, I will explore/argue/suggest…). Reference Foss’s
discussion of good and bad research questions in Chapter 2 for assistance. For the purposes of
this paper, please put your RQ in bold font for easy identification.
3. Description: Briefly summarize your artifact/discourse. Assume that the reader knows nothing
about it, so you need to provide a sense of it. What you include in your description will depend
based on your artifact. Your subject matter should dictate what needs to be described in order
for a reader to appreciate the analysis that follows. You may, for example, only need to provide
a general overview of a film, you may have to provide historical context for a speech or
movement, you may have to provide situational background material/context for a song, or a
summary of the content of a book, etc. To help provide a justification for why your artifact is
particularly appropriate or useful to answer the RQ you’ve proposed, you’ll also incorporate
information on its popularity, important messages it conveys, and attributes that make it
2
COMM 301: Pfister
unique and/or particularly persuasive or unpersuasive (avoid the awkward wording from
the Problem/Significance draft—at this point, the discussion of your artifact’s significance
should flow a lot more smoothly).
C. Literature Review: ~3-5 pages*
1. Summarize thematically what others have said about your artifact (or similar topics if there
isn’t a lot of academic research on your specific artifact) and its meaning, message, and effects.
Depending on your artifact and your claim, you may also review literature on the rhetor
responsible for your artifact, the problem for which your artifact functions as a solution, and/or
the context, history, and genre within which your artifact fits. In any case, don’t just list one
source after another: synthesize others’ works into categories, themes, or similar opinions. Do
not include too many direct quotations—paraphrase unless the quote is exceptionally eloquent
or clear. Try to avoid personal interpretations or analysis at this point, but do explain or clarify
the research discussed, especially direct quotes (quotes do not speak for themselves—they
ALWAYS require explanation).
2. Justification (warrant) for claim: Typically, toward the tail end of your literature review you
will state what’s wrong, problematic, inadequate, underdeveloped, or misleading about what
others have said about your topic. In other words, what’s missing in the extant discourse about
your topic? What has allowed or driven you to make the claim you’re about to make? This is
your exigence for writing this criticism. Why is your rhetorical criticism needed right now? If
you treat this section in the right way, it should lead directly into your rhetorical claim.
3. Rhetorical claim: Using clear, compelling, and streamlined syntax, state the rhetorical claim
you will be supporting throughout your analysis. Your claim should relate to how (tools/
strategies) your artifact functions as a persuasive message to an audience to address an
important problem or felt need. Refer to your notes on rhetorical claims for assistance with
appropriate wording. For the purposes of this paper, please put your rhetorical claim in bold
font for easy identification.
D. Method: ~1 page*
1. Choose a critical method that we’ve covered this semester to use as the basis for your analysis.
Review the example essays at the end of the chapter of your chosen method and model your
method section after those.
2. Summarize the purpose of the method, any theories/theorists driving the method, and
define/explain all key terms or concepts that will be relevant to your analysis (do not define
every single term and do not list exact steps for how to conduct the method from the textbook).
3. Justify why this method is appropriate for your forthcoming analysis. Your topic, research
question, and claim should be compatible with your chosen method of analysis.
4. Remind readers of your claim and restate/paraphrase it to be consistent with the terminology or
nature of your chosen method.
5. Preview specific features of your artifact that you will investigate in your analysis (these will
constitute the sub-arguments under your claim). The preview should be brief and serve as a
roadmap (and a transition to the analysis section) for where you plan to go in your essay.
3
COMM 301: Pfister
4
COMM 301: Pfister
• Within text citations DO NOT INCLUDE ARTICLE TITLES—it’s clunky, awkward, and does
not conform to APA style guidelines. As per APA, just cite the last names of the researchers
who conducted the research (either within the sentence or parenthetically) as well as the year
the research was published.
• When you are asserting your own ideas, (which you should be doing quite a bit), use FIRST
PERSON—take ownership of your claims (second and third person are usually awkward).
• Avoid overuse of direct quotes—write your own paper! Paraphrase unless the wording of the
original statement is incredibly poignant and/or would lose meaning in any other form.
• When making broad claims or using direct quotes, a good rule of thumb is to try to include two
sentences of explanation or support immediately following the claim or quote (even if you
think the claim or quote speaks for itself, many times, it doesn’t).
• When discussing studies that have already been conducted, use past tense.
• Subheadings are necessary, but they do not replace transitions. You need both!
• Proofread for typos and grammar/syntax errors—my personal pet peeve.
• Ignorance of the “rules” of plagiarism is not an excuse for plagiarism. Be careful.
Seriously.
• Remember: a scholarly paper is argumentative and reflective; it not solely a vehicle for the
assertion of personal feelings, beliefs, or reactions. Personal feelings are welcome, as long as
you include public justifications for them. In other words, support and back up your personal
feelings with reasoning and evidence. Conclusions should be supported with reasoning and
evidence as well. Make strong arguments by developing and defending any claims made. Don’t
assume “everybody knows” X, so it doesn’t need support. Descriptions need elaboration.
Opinions must be clarified and justified. In sum, all claims should be presented and supported
in a way that would be understandable and convincing to any potential reader—not just
yourself. Pretend your reader is someone who is not familiar with your chosen
artifact/discourse.
• Don’t wait until the last minute—it usually shows.
• Back up your work frequently—computer problems are not an excuse for late work!
• DO NOT USE A PAPER FROM ANOTHER CLASS! Yes, you may use sources from your
COMM 200 paper, but you may not copy and paste other class papers (or chunks of papers)
into this paper.