COMM 301: Pfister

Major Criticism Paper Guidelines (100 points)

Due date: on or before Friday, 12/17 @ 11:59pm via BB Dropbox in MS Word or PDF only—other
formats are not acceptable
Minimum requirements:
• Length: 10-15 pages not including title page or references (no shorter, but can be longer)
• References: must cite your artifact, your textbook, at least five professional/published academic
sources, plus any other references you used whether academic or not (for a bare minimum of
seven sources—more than the minimum is better)
• Format: APA (left justify, double space [no extra space between paragraphs], consecutively
number pages, 12 point Times New Roman font throughout, 1" margins on all four sides [you may
have to change the margins in MS Word], title page, running head, major headings and
subheadings, references page, etc.—no abstract needed). Please refer to the most recent edition of
the APA Manual and/or the OWL website at Purdue University for APA guidelines
(https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/).
Purpose: This assignment functions as your capstone experience in this course and is designed for you
to demonstrate your contributions to our discipline and your ability to professionally package your
ideas. To achieve these ends, you will need to exhibit proficiencies in researching, writing about,
analyzing, and applying methods to rhetorical artifacts.
Assignment: Complete a comprehensive research-driven, method-driven, and insight-driven critical
rhetorical analysis of an artifact of your choice. Choose an artifact worthy of rhetorical analysis,
research it, choose an appropriate method through which to explain it, analyze it, and draw conclusions
and implications about it. There are two main requirements for this assignment, discussed in detail
below: 1) research for the topic and artifact/discourse you will analyze; and 2) the written paper itself.
RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION: You should incorporate various sources in every section
of your paper, but your primary focus (especially in your Literature Review) should be on scholarly
articles and publications. Major newspapers, weekly magazines, and some other non-scholarly sources
may also be used depending on your choice of artifact. Avoid non-reputable internet sources (as their
quality is suspect) unless they are actually part of your artifact or they are important to the
discourse/context surrounding your artifact (e.g., if you are analyzing a blog or a Twitter page as your
artifact, then you’ll need to cite those as sources). Although the topic itself and the rhetorical claim you
are advancing will determine the direction of your research, you should search all of the typical
categories of information (i.e., academic journals in communication and related disciplines, academic
books or essays in scholarly books, popular magazines and books, newspapers, television
documentaries, government publications or the publications of political, social, or community groups,
etc.). See Draft #3 guidelines for more details.
In addition to obtaining a copy of and referencing your artifact [include a copy for your reader in an
appendix if possible], you can and should use your textbook and include it in your references list.
Besides your artifact and the textbook, you must incorporate an additional minimum of five
published, professional scholarly research sources in your paper (more than the minimum is
preferred if you want to do a thorough analysis). Again, you may use relevant non-scholarly research
as well, as long as it is in addition to the required scholarly sources.
ORGANIZATION OF THE PAPER: Feel free to reorder the elements within each major section
below as needed. Be sure to include major headings for the Literature Review, Method, Analysis,
and Conclusions/Implications (there is no need for an Introduction heading since that section comes
1
 COMM 301: Pfister

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

E. Analysis: ~3+ pages*

1. The analysis is the most important part of your paper. It is your unique interpretation of your
artifact (considering what’s missing in the extant research) and sub-arguments in support of
your claim. It should consist of a detailed examination of the ways your artifact communicates
or leads to a certain end (the solution to the problem, i.e., your claim). It consists of arguments,
evidence, examples, and analytical insights that come from following your chosen method.
2. Follow the procedures, steps, or parts of your method. You should have summarized relevant
aspects and concepts in your method section, so use these procedures to organize your analysis
for you. As you address each part of the method, you’ll be making a series of arguments,
identifying strategies, and/or documenting themes, each of which needs to be supported by
examples, evidence, and inferences about how they function for an audience. You should have
multiple and varied examples stemming from your artifact itself (grounds) to support each sub-
argument you make (and each sub-argument should be in support of your overall rhetorical
claim). Additionally, you should include concrete support from research to bolster your
arguments. If your analysis section ends up too short, use more examples and clarify meanings.
F. Conclusions and Implications: ~1-2 pages*
1. This section is where you assert your distinct voice/perspective to make critical judgments
about your artifact/topic and how it works rhetorically (you’ll still want to cite sources in
support of your perspective). To the degree warranted by your topic, determine the real,
implied, and/or potential effects of your artifact/discourse on the audience/society, the moral or
ethical implications of its message or strategies, and what it tells us about the audience and/or
the broader culture that finds such a discourse meaningful or appealing (or not).
2. End your paper by identifying what we now know about your artifact/topic and rhetoric that we
didn’t know prior to your analysis and what that means within the current context of our society
(basically, answer your RQ and reiterate your claim). What contributions has your analysis
made to our discipline? Consider both the theoretical implications and the social, political, or
cultural implications of your analysis.
G. References: provide complete APA citations for each source you use in your essay
H. Appendix: attach a copy of your artifact/discourse if possible (e.g., speech, advertisements,
photographs, song lyrics, etc.)

Other General Suggestions:

• Grammarly (Google it) or other similar resources are especially helpful with basic syntax and
grammar (many of these services offer free trials as well, so you don’t have to pay them).
• Outlines help a lot with organization.
• Focus on broad findings of studies in your lit review, not on specific (often irrelevant) details
and rationales.
• Use gender-neutral non-heteronormative language with hypotheticals, job titles, etc. (e.g.,
they/them/their, romantic partner, congressperson, mail carrier, police officer, fire fighter, etc.).
• Use parallel language (e.g., women/men, girl/boy, etc.).
• Generally avoid first names of researchers; refer to them by last name per APA. First names are
okay with big name theorists, etc. (e.g., Kenneth Burke, etc.).

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.