Advocacy Project
This project will require you to study and respond to a specific public issue, event,
problem or controversy. The project has three main parts. The first part is a written
analysis that situates your special topic in historical context; and identifies key
arguments, persuasive voices, and points of silence or misunderstanding. Think of this
part of the project as a “criticism” paper. You’ll choose some example of public
discourse and identify its persuasive appeals. Successful papers will advance a thesis,
develop a literature review, apply course concepts, and arrive at some well-reasoned
conclusions.
The second part of the project is a multimedia response by you—your contribution to the
public discourse—you might think of this as a kind of “persuasive speech.”
The third part of the project is a written self-evaluation that will employ the concepts and
vocabulary from the course readings and discussion (and thus serve as a final exam).
 PRIMARY GOAL: Use course concepts and ideas to analyze and then contribute to
some issue in public discourse.
Expected length: 5-7 Pages for the analysis; 10-15 minutes for the Presentation; 2-5
pages for the self-evaluation.
Due: Wednesday 12/18 3pm.
I. Criticism paper: The goal of this paper is to identify one or several pieces of public
discourse and explain what makes it/them influential, persuasive, and/or powerful. You
should use the vocabulary/concepts from the course to provide some insight about your
subject matter. A focused study of one speaker or text; or a comparative analysis of 2-3
would be appropriate. Each paper needs:
An Introduction: grabs the attention of the reader, introduces the topic, establishes its
significance, and culminates in a thesis statement.
A “Facts of the case” section: describe the piece of public discourse you will study, tell
us what we need to know about it in order to understand your argument to follow.
A “Literature review” section: identifies a number of important “scholarly conversations”
you will draw from and participate in. You should at minimum use course readings to
help build your argument and then report about what scholars have said about your object
or the “type” of object you are studying.
 Be sure to represent the author’s view accurately and fully.
 In some cases, there may be a debate about your topic. If so, you should represent
the various opposed arguments and explain what accounts for the dispute.
 Explain how your paper will contribute to a given scholarly conversation.
An “Analysis” Section: This is where you work through the main arguments of your
paper. Break the section up into a set of 2-4 Main points (or Main Claims)—phrase each
as a mini-thesis statement and/or specific arguments. Do they, in sum, provide strong
grounds for the judgment you want the reader to make?
 The arguments should be well supported by your literature and/or course readings
 The arguments should be backed by evidence from your object/text.
 The section might include/address potential counterarguments
A “Conclusion” Section: This signals the end of the paper, reiterates the main points,
amplifies and extends your claims about the significance of your study, and leaves the
reader with something memorable.
II. Advocacy Presentation: The goal of this part of the project is for you to contribute to
public discourse about your topic. After having studied and analyzed public discourse
around a controversy or event, you now can play the role of an informed advocate. Your
presentation should inform the audience about the topic; amplify our sense of the
importance of the issues/ideas; and influence our understanding or our behavior.
Presentations should:
 Be well designed and well suited to the audience
 Be balanced and ethical in the information you provide
 Use the techniques we’ve studied to serve as a strong advocate for your ideas
 Provide visual/multimedia elements to help carry your message
 Leave space for audiences to question and contribute
III. Self-assessment: The goal of this part of the project is for you to reflect on your work
and make some critical analysis of your own role as a public advocate. What did you
learn? What did you accomplish? What were some of the limitations in your approach?
How might you take the project forward into wider spheres of influence?
* Note: your self assessment may, instead, focus on your thinking and work in the course
as a whole (rather than as strictly limited to the project)
Some Advice:
Seek out an object of study that you find significant, complex, masterful, troubling, or
that you’d like to learn more about.
Do some initial brainstorming, thinking, and reading about your object of study. What
do you think is the value of studying it as an instance of rhetoric? What makes the object
persuasive? What are the various appeals made by the speaker? What alternatives does
the discourse obscure or silence? What key terms will you use to describe and critique
the object?
Write a set of arguments about the object. For each, provide a claim, some reasoning in
support of the claim, some evidence to support the reasoning. Consider also the warrant
for the each argument and potential counterarguments. The question here is this: what do
you wish to say about the object and how can you prove it? Draw heavily on your key
terms here.
Use your literature review to clarify the issues. What have scholars said about the
subject? Does your object exemplify ideas scholars have discussed? Does it challenge
accepted ideas? Does it settle some debate?
Focus on significance. Work to explain why your object of study, your approach, and
your conclusions matter.
Focus on the terms for rhetorical theory: Remember, this paper is a kind of “test” of your
knowledge of rhetorical theory. Make your ideas clear, choose your terms wisely, define
things appropriately, and show what skills you’ve developed in your engagement with the
class.