PWR 03-04/05                                                                                                              Winter 2002

Marvin Diogenes/Alyssa J. O’Brien                                                                   Stanford University

Purposeful Laughter: Comic Persuasion in Classical and Contemporary Rhetoric

Assignment: Research Proposal: Peer Review Letters

            Due: Friday, February 15, 2002  in class  (bring in 2 copies of each)

Length/Format: 1 page, typed, for each Research Proposal, 2 copies of each. You should also keep a copy for yourself.

Description:  An opportunity to provide and receive peer feedback on the Research Proposal.

Purpose/Goals: As we have said many times, writing is never done in a vacuum, and peer reviews demonstrate the way in which all writing is social, part of a community dialogue, and subject to change based on the responses of the particular audience.  There is a triangular relationship between writer, reader, and material, with each part contributing to the balance of the whole.  This is no where more true with Proposals for larger projects.  Consider yourself part of a Project Review Board.  It is your task to evaluation this project in terms of scope, feasibility, and depth.  At the same time, by learning to assess and encourage each other’s projects, you will gain invaluable insights on how to improve, extend, narrow or modify your own research plan and methods.

Directions: You should read over the two Research Proposals without pen in hand and jot down your dominant impressions on the back of this paper (What stands out? What makes the most vivid impression?). Then, read the proposal again, making notes right on the page with a pen or pencil.  Again, don’t focus on grammar and other mechanical aspects.  Focus on the ideas and how they are presented.  What is the writer saying?  How is it being said?  What are the rhetorical strategies used to convey the elements of the research proposal?  Then, type a brief letter to each writer and address the following three questions:

1.      What rhetorical strategies work particularly well in this research proposal and what strategies do not work as well?  (Consider the title, the introduction, the use of pathos, logos, or ethos, the appeal to an audience, the integration of sources, the argument for the topic’s significance, the use of comic tone, the format/presentation of the proposal, and other aspects of writing and design.)

2.      What specific advice can you provide with regard to the methods and questions of inquiry in the proposal?  (Here you might offer additional methods or questions to help the writer continue to develop a research plan; or you might suggest ways to broaden/narrow the scope of the project.)

3.      What would you ideally love to see emerge from this project – where might the writer take this inquiry?  (This is a subjective question meant to challenge and motivate the writer!)

Note: Your task in this letter is to provide crucial feedback on the writer’s ideas and ways of presenting them in this essay.   Be constructive and positive, but be rigorous as well.

Sign your name at the bottom of each letter!

Back to Main Page for "Purposeful Laughter: Comic Persuasion in Classical and Contemporary Rhetoric"