ethical rogerian argument essay

Essay Papers Writing Online

Master the art of writing a rogerian essay with these step-by-step guidelines.

Are you struggling to find common ground in an argumentative essay? A Rogerian essay might just be the solution you need. A Rogerian essay focuses on finding a middle ground and establishing rapport with the opposing viewpoint, rather than outright conflicting. This approach can lead to more constructive dialogue and understanding, making it a valuable tool in persuasive writing.

In this guide, we will explore the key elements of a Rogerian essay and provide you with tips on how to effectively structure and write one. Additionally, we will offer examples to illustrate the Rogerian approach in action, helping you to grasp the concept and apply it to your own writing.

Understanding the Rogerian Essay Approach

The Rogerian essay approach is a unique method of argumentation that aims to find common ground between conflicting viewpoints. Unlike traditional argumentative essays that focus on proving one side as the “right” side, Rogerian essays seek to understand and respect opposing perspectives. This approach emphasizes listening, empathy, and open-mindedness in order to foster constructive dialogue and resolution.

In a Rogerian essay, the writer acknowledges the validity of the opposing viewpoint before presenting their own position. This helps establish trust and credibility with the audience, creating a more receptive environment for discussion. By recognizing the merits of each perspective and finding areas of agreement, the Rogerian approach encourages cooperation and compromise rather than confrontation and conflict.

Overall, the Rogerian essay approach is effective in promoting understanding and collaboration between individuals with differing opinions. By approaching arguments with empathy and a willingness to engage in respectful dialogue, writers can create a more inclusive and productive discourse that promotes mutual understanding and consensus.

Overview of the Rogerian Essay Structure

A Rogerian essay is a form of argumentative essay that aims to find a middle ground between two conflicting perspectives. This type of essay is structured differently from traditional argumentative essays, focusing on finding common ground and understanding the opposing viewpoints. Below is an overview of the typical structure of a Rogerian essay:

• Introduction: Begin by introducing the topic and providing background information on the issue. Clearly state the problem or controversy at hand.
• Contextualization: Provide an overview of both sides of the argument, acknowledging the validity of each perspective without taking a definitive stance.
• Thesis Statement: Present your thesis, which should express a willingness to understand and compromise with the opposing viewpoint.
• Body Paragraphs: Develop your argument by exploring common ground and areas of agreement between the opposing perspectives. Use evidence and examples to support your points.
• Counterarguments: Acknowledge the strengths of the opposing viewpoint and address potential objections or concerns. Refrain from using confrontational language.
• Conclusion: Summarize the key points of your argument and reiterate the importance of finding common ground. End on a positive note, emphasizing the potential for cooperation and mutual understanding.

By following this structure, you can create a Rogerian essay that fosters constructive dialogue and promotes empathy and understanding between conflicting viewpoints.

Key Elements to Include in a Rogerian Essay

When writing a Rogerian essay, it is essential to include the following key elements:

How to Start Writing a Rogerian Essay

When starting a Rogerian essay, it is important to first choose a topic that is controversial yet has multiple viewpoints that can be explored. Consider issues that are debated in society but have no clear right or wrong answer.

Next, conduct thorough research on the chosen topic to understand different perspectives and arguments. This will help you present a well-rounded analysis in your essay.

Once you have gathered enough information, outline the main points of contention and areas of agreement between different viewpoints. This will serve as the basis for your argument and help you structure your essay effectively.

Remember that the goal of a Rogerian essay is to find common ground and establish mutual understanding. Approach the topic with an open mind and be willing to consider opposing viewpoints.

Lastly, start writing your essay by introducing the topic, presenting the different perspectives, and highlighting areas of agreement. Focus on building rapport with your audience and creating a respectful dialogue throughout the essay.

Examples of Rogerian Essays

Here are a few examples of Rogerian essays that showcase the principles of finding common ground and understanding different perspectives:

Tips for Writing a Successful Rogerian Essay

Writing a successful Rogerian essay involves careful planning and thoughtful consideration of your audience and argument. Here are some tips to help you craft a compelling and effective Rogerian essay:

Related Post

How to master the art of writing expository essays and captivate your audience, convenient and reliable source to purchase college essays online, step-by-step guide to crafting a powerful literary analysis essay, unlock success with a comprehensive business research paper example guide, unlock your writing potential with writers college – transform your passion into profession, “unlocking the secrets of academic success – navigating the world of research papers in college”, master the art of sociological expression – elevate your writing skills in sociology.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Rogerian Argument

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Rogerian argument (or Rogerian rhetoric) is a form of argumentative reasoning that aims to establish a middle ground between parties with opposing viewpoints or goals. Developed by psychotherapist Carl Rogers and adapted to rhetoric by writing scholars Young, Becker, and Pike, the speaker seeks compromise, acknowledging positive aspects of each party’s argument to arrive at a mutually-beneficial solution to an issue. 

You may already use Rogerian argument in your everyday life to negotiate with your friends, family, and/or romantic partners. For example, if you wanted to watch a comedy and your friend wanted to watch a romance, you might compromise by offering to watch a rom-com, as this offers each of you a bit of what you are looking for in that particular moment. Note, however, that this style of argument is decidedly less common in academic settings, where various empirical or theoretical notions of truth are often prized above the practical advantages of the Rogerian method.

While Aristotelian styles of argument are often seen as eristic (concerned primarily with winning), the Rogerian argument can be viewed as more dialectic in nature (a conversation between two or more parties with the goal of arriving at some mutually-satisfying solution). Thus, practicing the Rogerian argument will enhance your ability to understand the complex relations of opposing viewpoints and provide tools for addressing such discrepancies sympathetically. It’s also great for day-to-day conflict resolution at home or in the workplace.

However, Rogerian argument does come with disadvantages. For example, because Rogerian argument relies on compromise between opposing parties, it may not work well when your opponents are unwilling or unable to compromise, or if they are arguing in bad faith (e.g., they care only about winning). It may also lead to sub-optimal solutions if your opponent’s position is demonstrably wrong, since in this case you may nevertheless be forced to sacrifice some of your (ostensibly superior) goals order to accommodate your opponent’s (inferior) ones.

In “Rhetoric: Discovery and Change” (1970), Young, Becker, and Pike describe the primary aims of the Rogerian argument as follows:

• to convey to the reader that he is understood,
• to delineate the area within which he believes the reader's position to be valid, and
• to induce him to believe that he and the writer share similar moral qualities (honesty, integrity, and good will) and aspirations (the desire to discover a mutually acceptable solution).

The first aim shows the reader that you understand the complexities of the argument and that you have listened sympathetically to what it is they have to say. This is important, because the success of the Rogerian arguments relies on cooperation and collaboration. The second aim puts this understanding into practice by seeking a symbiotic solution. The third aim builds ethos and rapport between the parties. If audiences believe they share a value system with a speaker or writer, they are more likely to agree to the terms of whatever solution is presented.

While each of these aims is important, Young, Becker, and Pike stress that they are just that: aims, not steps. You should not necessarily view these aims as occurring in a linear, step-by-step process. The authors present a synthesized discussion of what a successful Rogerian argument should contain, but they eschew any formalized structure. The structure of the argument should instead be determined by the speaker, and it should be modified and adapted according to the rhetorical situation at hand.

Again, there is no formalized structure for the Rogerian argument, though the following example provides a foundation   for considering how you might structure your own argument.

A successful Rogerian argument will likely include the following:

• Introduction (addressing the topic to be discussed and/or the problem to be solved)
• Opposing position (showing that you understand your opposition’s viewpoints/goals)
• Context for opposing position (showing that you understand the situations in which their viewpoint is valid)
• Your position (introducing/addressing your viewpoint as it differs from the reader’s)
• Context for your position (objectively showing the reader the context(s) under which your position is valid)
• Benefits (appeal to the opposition by showing how they would benefit by adopting elements of your position)

Below, we’ve provided an example Rogerian argument that follows the formula above. In this example, we will take the position that technology (e.g., laptops and tablets) should be allowed in writing classes while also considering the opinion of the opposition, who argue that such technology is more of a distraction than   a helpful tool. In so doing, we should be able to arrive at a solution that considers both arguments and develops a solution that benefits both parties while still achieving our goal of allowing technology in the classroom.

Introduction

Here, we would introduce the topic and briefly discuss why it is a matter of contention. We would lay out the differing perspectives, briefly mention the merits of each argument, and discuss the implications closely considering all perspectives to arrive at a solution that works for everyone.

Opposing position

Here, we would introduce the opposing position that digital technology should not be allowed in the writing classroom. We would also list and discuss their objections to the proposition of technology in the classroom. These might include the notions that it’s distracting for the individual, the class, and the instructor, and is often used to avoid the lesson and instead play games or go on social media.

Context for opposing position

Here we might provide specific details that lend merit to their argument. We want to show that we are fully considering their claims and not just giving lip service, in the hope that that they will give similar value to our opinions. We could include statistics, testimony from instructors and students, or even examples from media that support their theory that digital technology can indeed be a distraction during instruction.

Your Position

Here, we would introduce our claim that digital technology should be allowed in the writing classroom. We would still want to speak as objectively as possible in order to establish our ethos as concerned but unbiased speaker. We might even qualify our position by acknowledging that there are, of course, situations in which technology should be put away, but reiterate that, generally speaking, the presence of digital technology is a positive.

Context for your position

Here, we can provide examples that run contrary to the ones we used for the context of our opposition’s position. For example, we could gather testimony from students who claim that using these technologies in class has been beneficial. We could include research and scholarship that supports our position and even quote instructors who have developed pedagogy around these technologies. We might even subtly demonstrate that our opposition has failed to account for all possibilities by choosing our examples carefully. For instance, we could easily include accounts of students with learning disabilities who might otherwise have a difficult time succeeding in class without the help of assistive technologies.

Here, we would use the points we’ve established throughout the argument to appeal to our opposition and find some productive middle ground that benefits both parties. We would acknowledge that some instructors do not want digital technologies present in the classroom, as they believe they distract from paying attention during lectures. We would maintain, however, that these technologies can indeed be productive tools for learning—in some cases, they can even be a virtual requirement for learning. We could then offer a solution: that these digital technologies should be kept aside during lecture portions of a lesson except in the case of students with documented disabilities. This way, students will likely be paying attention, taking notes by hand which they can transcribe later if they so wish. However, once a class moves from lecture to activity (whether group or individual), students should be allowed to access these technologies to more effectively engage with the activity, organize their thoughts, and access information. Now that the instructor is no longer lecturing, it should be easier to monitor student progress and engagement and the use of technology for these activities will lead to more developed and better organized results from the students.

Rogerian Argument: Definition and Examples

• An Introduction to Punctuation
• Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
• M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
• B.A., English, State University of New York

Rogerian argument is a negotiating strategy in which common goals are identified and opposing views are described as objectively as possible in an effort to establish common ground and reach an agreement. It is also known as  Rogerian rhetoric , Rogerian argumentation , Rogerian persuasion , and empathic listening .

Whereas traditional argument focuses on winning , the Rogerian model seeks a mutually satisfactory solution.

The Rogerian model of argument was adapted from the work of American psychologist Carl Rogers by the composition scholars Richard Young, Alton Becker, and Kenneth Pike in their textbook "Rhetoric: Discovery and Change" (1970).

Aims of Rogerian Argument

The authors of "Rhetoric: Discovery and Change" explain the process this way:

"The writer who uses the Rogerian strategy attempts to do three things: (1) to convey to the reader that he is understood, (2) to delineate the area within which he believes the reader's position to be valid, and (3) to induce him to believe that he and the writer share similar moral qualities (honesty, integrity, and good will) and aspirations (the desire to discover a mutually acceptable solution). We stress here that these are only tasks, not stages of the argument. Rogerian argument has no conventional structure; in fact, users of the strategy deliberately avoid conventional persuasive structures and techniques because these devices tend to produce a sense of threat, precisely what the writer seeks to overcome....

"The goal of Rogerian argument is to create a situation conducive to cooperation; this may well involve changes in Format of Rogerian Argument.

When presenting your case and the case of the other side, the style is flexible with how you set up your information and how long you spend on each section. But you do want to be balanced—spending an inordinate amount of time on your position and only giving lip service to the other side, for example, defeats the purpose of using the Rogerian style. The ideal format of a written Rogerian persuasion looks something like this (Richard M. Coe, "Form and Substance: An Advanced Rhetoric." Wiley, 1981):

• Introduction : Present the topic as a problem to solve together, rather than an issue.
• Opposing position : State the opinion of your opposition in an objective manner that's fair and accurate, so the "other side" knows that you understand its position.
• Context for the opposing position : Show the opposition that you understand under what circumstances its position is valid .
• Your position : Present your position objectively. Yes, you want to be convincing, but you want the opposition to see it with clarity and fairly as well, just as you presented its position earlier.
• Context for your position : Show the opposition contexts in which your position is also valid.
• Benefits : Appeal to the opposition and show how elements of your position could work to benefit its interests.

You use one type of rhetoric when discussing your position with people who already agree with you. To discuss your position with the opposition, you need to tone that down and break it into objective elements, so the sides can more easily see areas of common ground. Taking the time to state the opposing side's arguments and contexts means the opposition has less reason to get defensive and stop listening to your ideas.

Feminist Responses to Rogerian Argument

In the 1970s and into the early 1990s, some debate existed about whether women should use this conflict-solving technique.

"Feminists are divided on the method: some see Rogerian argument as feminist and beneficial because it appears less antagonistic than traditional Aristotelian argument. Others argue that when used by women, this type of argument reinforces the 'feminine' stereotype, since historically women are viewed as nonconfrontational and understanding (see especially Catherine E. Lamb's 1991 article 'Beyond Argument in Freshman Composition' and Phyllis Lassner's 1990 article 'Feminist Responses to Rogerian Argument')." (Edith H. Babin and Kimberly Harrison, "Contemporary Composition Studies: A Guide to Theorists and Terms." Greenwood, 1999)

• What Does Argumentation Mean?
• paralogism (rhetoric and logic)
• Socratic Dialogue (Argumentation)
• Definition and Examples of Evidence in Argument
• Stipulative Definitions in English
• expeditio (elimination)
• Logos (Rhetoric)
• What Does It Mean to Make a Claim During an Argument?
• Concession Used in Rhetoric
• Definition and Examples of Praeteritio (Preteritio) in Rhetoric
• Exordium - Definition and Examples
• What Is a Red Herring?
• Amplification Definition and Examples in Rhetoric
• Definition and Examples of Dialectic in Rhetoric
• Peroration: The Closing Argument

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

IV. Types of Argumentation

4.6 Rogerian Argument

Terri Pantuso

As discussed in the previous section, for Toulmin, argumentation is an attempt to justify a statement or a set of statements and focuses solely upon proving those statements. But what happens when you can concede that your opponent has a valid point? Because we are complex creatures, humans oftentimes find themselves strongly opposed to something that later changes for them once they are presented with different evidence. While many arguments can seemingly be based upon emotions alone, when presented with logical evidence to refute our position we may experience a crisis of conscience. Is it possible to hold firmly to one belief yet concede that the opposing side has merit? There is a way if you utilize the Rogerian method for argumentation.

Carl Rogers (1902-1987) was an American psychologist and clinical therapist who utilized a humanistic (client-centered) approach to psychology. When applied to argumentation, the Rogerian method makes use of examining counterarguments as enhancements, or concessions, rather than viewing them as completely oppositional. According to Lunsford et al., “Rogers argued that people involved in disputes should not respond to each other until they [can] fully, fairly, and even sympathetically state the other person’s position.” [1] Rogers’ non confrontational methods, when applied to argumentation in rhetoric, suggests that the most personal feelings are also the most common and, therefore, are the most likely to be understood.

One benefit to utilizing a Rogerian approach in composition studies is that it encourages the writer/arguer to build a bridge towards oppositional positions. This does not mean that you abandon your own position, and it does not mean that your position is weak. Rather, a Rogerian approach provides alternative perspectives for considering a given position as well as methods for responding to counterarguments that might seem to refute your major premise .

Much like the Toulmin method, the Rogerian method relies upon claims that can be supported with evidence (data). How the Rogerian method differs is in the concession where, if there is a strong, valid argument that refutes your claim, you concede that argument might be a valid point in a different context. Or, perhaps you concede that a portion of your opponent’s argument is valid for your position, yet point out how the circumstances differ, therefore making your position the most logical, strongest one for your given topic. While the goal remains to persuade your reader/audience to view your position as valid, when utilizing the Rogerian method you build common ground to other possibilities and demonstrate that counterviews are not entirely wrong.

When used in argumentation, the Rogerian method allows for a dialogue to occur surrounding an issue. By examining counterarguments to your claims, you are able to view your position/ thesis from a different point of view. Understanding all (or most) of the points surrounding your given topic will strengthen your own position as you will create a more fully informed essay.

Practice Activity

• Andrea Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz, and Keith Walters, Everything’s an Argument, 8th ed. (Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2018), 139. ↵

A human-centered approach or perspective to an issue.

The basic assumptions or understanding on which an argument is based or from which conclusions are drawn. A major premise is a statement of universal truth or common knowledge. A minor premise is a statement related to a major premise but concerns a specific situation.

A statement, usually one sentence, that summarizes an argument that will later be explained, expanded upon, and developed in a longer essay or research paper. In undergraduate writing, a thesis statement is often found in the introductory paragraph of an essay. The plural of thesis is theses .

4.6 Rogerian Argument Copyright © 2023 by Terri Pantuso is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

The Rogerian Method: A Practical Guide to Effective Persuasion

People have studied and practiced the art of persuasion for centuries. As a result, they have developed various methods of conventional persuasive structures and techniques to present arguments. One such method is the Rogerian argument. A Rogerian way of argumentation aims to identify comparable perspectives between opposing viewpoints. This article will explore the Rogerian argument model and its application in essay writing, including its use in a rhetorical analysis essay.

The Rogerian argument is based on the principles of Rogerian communication, named after psychologist Carl Rogers. It seeks to understand the opposition of the audience. A Rogerian argument assumes that each party in a debate has similar moral qualities and can work together to find an acceptable solution. The Rogerian argument method is different from a traditional argument approach. The classical argument sets up a composition that aims to persuade the audience. In the case of the Rogerian argument, the author prioritizes shared interests and works towards finding a mutual solution. By acknowledging the validity of each point, the writer creates a productive dialogue.

In conclusion, the Rogerian argument method provides a unique and effective approach to writing essays. It prioritizes finding shared interests and shared priorities. By focusing on dialogue, cooperation, and compromise, the Rogerian strategy attempts to find overlapping interests. It does so by identifying mutually beneficial objectives and goals. With the right guidance from argumentative essay writers , you can use Rogerian argumentation in your essay. And also promote rhetoric discovery and change.

In the following sections, we will define the Rogerian argument model and explain its structure in detail. It offers tips on how to use it effectively in essay writing, including how to write a Rogerian essay in writing classes.

Definitions of the Rogerian Model

In this section, we will define Rogerian argument model. This method of argumentation seeks to establish mutual objectives between opinions. Psychologist Carl Rogers is the namesake of Rogerian rhetoric. The argument method involves three main parts: preface, body, and conclusion.

Emotionally charged topics need even more attention to audience analysis. You should approach such topics with sensitivity and respect. Take the time to understand the audience or reader’s perspective accurately. By doing so, writers can tailor their arguments to appeal to the reader’s values and beliefs. This can lead to a more productive and respectful dialogue, which will increase the likelihood of finding valid solutions.

The body of the argument paper is where the Rogerian approaches shine. By acknowledging the major barrier, the writer earns the trust of the audience. This approach helps to build a bridge between the two positions.

The conclusion of the Rogerian argument should highlight the two shared values and priorities. It should also propose an alternative solution that accommodates both viewpoints. Following the Rogerian argumentative essay outline can help writers effectively use this technique and promote constructive conflict resolution.

A Rogerian argument is a powerful tool for building bridges between the opposition. Additionally, rhetorical devices tend to be less aggressive than traditional or classical argument. In the next section, we will discuss the structure of the essay in more detail.

Finished papers

Customer reviews

Structure of Essay with Rogerian Method Argumentation

The structure of a Rogerian argument composition is distinct from that of a conventional argumentative essay. The argument begins with the foreword. Here the writer acknowledges the opposition to establish credibility. The conventional structure argumentative essay presents an opposing position, with the writer trying to persuade the audience to adopt their view. In contrast, a Rogerian essay aims to find similar perspectives between opposing viewpoints.

The structure has six main parts: Rogerian argument begins with an introduction. Then comes position 1, transition, position 2, reconciliation, and conclusion. This structure helps the writer to present the opposition fairly and objectively. In this type of writing, the writer also shows readiness to compromise in search of shared interests. In the next sections, we will explore each part of the Rogerian argument example.

Introduction

In a Rogerian argument, the intro is an important stage. The writer not only presents the topic but also acknowledges the other side to establish credibility. This section should also create a sense of goodwill and a willingness to find mutual objectives, setting the tone for the rest of the essay. The Rogerian approach in the introduction sets the stage for the writer’s intention to find a valid acceptable solution together, rather than merely winning an argument. This approach helps to avoid creating an adversarial relationship between the writer and the reader. It also leads to a more productive dialogue.

In the next section, Position 1 of the Rogerian argument, the writer presents the first opposing position or argument. This section should be presented fairly and objectively, without any bias. The writer should explain the opponent’s position thoroughly. For example, by providing supporting evidence for their point. This section is critical because it demonstrates that the writer has taken the time to understand the opposition accurately and can present it effectively to the reader. A Rogerian essay example can be helpful in understanding how to present an opposing view without bias.

In the Rogerian argument structure, the transition section plays a critical role in the essay. This section is where the writer moves from position 1 to position 2 while highlighting the common goals and goals that both viewpoints have in common, which can facilitate finding a valid solution and ultimately help to find the middle ground. By focusing on overlapping values, the writer makes it easier to bridge the gap between opposing positions and find the middle between them. The transition section is an essential part of the Rogerian argument, emphasizing the importance of identifying and acknowledging the overlapping interests and goals of both parties.

In the next section of the Rogerian argument composition, Position 2, the other side or argument is introduced. In this section, you write counterargument in essay. Present the opposing viewpoint fairly and objectively, just like position 1. The writer should explain the position in detail and provide supporting evidence for their argument. This approach ensures that the writer gives equal attention and consideration to both oppositions, which is key to creating a more productive dialogue and finding a valid solution. By acknowledging and addressing both sides of the issue, the writer can build trust and understanding of the reader’s perspective and promote a more collaborative approach to problem-solving.

Reconciliation

In the reconciliation section of a Rogerian essay, the writer aims to bring the two opposing viewpoints closer together. This section is where the writer identifies and highlights the overlapping interests, perspectives, and goals that both viewpoints have in common. By highlighting the mutual objectives between the two positions, the writer creates an atmosphere of goodwill and cooperation in the reconciliation section of the essay. In this paragraph, the writer presents an example of a solution that could be acceptable to both parties. This approach is critical because it shows that the writer is willing to work towards finding a mutual solution for both parties rather than trying to win an argument.

The conclusion should summarize the main points and emphasize the converging opinions and overlapping interests between the two positions. It should also underline the benefits of working towards a mutual solution and demonstrate that the writer is willing to compromise. Overall, The Rogerian argument method is an effective tool for finding solutions that satisfy both parties by prioritizing common goals and finding a middle ground.

The Rogerian argument method provides a unique and effective approach to writing essays. By focusing on finding overlapping perspectives and shared priorities, the writer can build a strong case that is both persuasive and respectful of opposing viewpoints. This approach encourages dialogue and cooperation between opposing parties, leading to a more productive and beneficial outcome for all involved. The Rogerian argument method can promote rhetoric discovery and change.

If you are struggling with writing an argumentative essay using the Rogerian approach, consider seeking help from a professional writer or tutor who can write your argumentative essay for you, or even buy argumentative essays online. To find appropriate topics for a Rogerian essay, consider one that you are passionate about.

Tips on How to Use Rogerian Argumentation in Essay

In the Rogerian essay example, it’s crucial to understand the method’s purpose and structure and know how to write a Rogerian argument effectively. Here are some tips on how to use Rogerian argumentation effectively in an essay:

• Acknowledge the Opposition. While using the Rogerian argument method, acknowledge the opposition. This helps you to establish credibility with the audience. The Rogerian approach in the introduction sets the stage for the writer’s intention to find a mutually acceptable solution than merely winning an argument.
• Find middle ground. The writer should focus on identifying and acknowledging the overlapping interests. This approach makes it easier to bridge the gap between opposing stances and find a shared point. The writer should suggest an example of a solution that could be acceptable to both parties. The author should also emphasize the importance of finding a mutual solution between the opposing views of the reader.
• Be collaborative . Seek common ground and explore the context of the opposing position respectfully and constructively. The writer’s position should be accompanied by a differing opinion.
• Consensus Building. Emphasizing consensual beliefs and goals is a crucial aspect of the Rogerian argument. Incorporating opponents’ positions and presenting them impartially support finding common ground. By highlighting an example of a solution, a willing writer shows they are not merely giving lip service to finding an acceptable solution.
• Shared solutions. Understand the context in which the opposing viewpoints were formed. By doing so, you can better comprehend how to write a Rogerian argument essay example in your writing classroom. The goal is not to attack or belittle the reader’s position. Instead, you have to find common ground and propose acceptable solutions. Avoid using inflammatory language, as it may make it harder to establish goodwill. Instead, argue, and remain calm and respectful. And focus on the areas of agreement between the two positions. This approach will help build trust with the willing reader and foster productive dialogue.

In a Rogerian essay example, finding overlapping perspectives is the main goal. By considering the reader’s perspective, custom essay writers create a dialogue toward a solution. This way, they tailor their arguments to appeal to the reader’s values and beliefs. It resulted in a persuasive and respectful essay.

To conclude, the Rogerian argument method let essays prioritize shared points. The Rogerian style mostly focuses on finding a compromise and a common ground. As such, it can help resolve conflicts and find answers or alternative solutions. If you find the Rogerian method overwhelming, ask professionals to write your argumentative essay for you. With the right guidance, you can effectively use Rogerian argumentation in your essay. And also promote rhetoric discovery and change.

Related posts:

• How To Write A Good Compare And Contrast Essay: Topics, Examples And Step-by-step Guide

How to Write a Scholarship Essay

• How to Write the Methods Section for a Research Paper: Effective Writing Guide
• Explaining Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy with Demonstrative Examples

Improve your writing with our guides

Definition Essay: The Complete Guide with Essay Topics and Examples

Critical Essay: The Complete Guide. Essay Topics, Examples and Outlines

Get 15% off your first order with edusson.

Connect with a professional writer within minutes by placing your first order. No matter the subject, difficulty, academic level or document type, our writers have the skills to complete it.

100% privacy. No spam ever.

Encyclopedia

Writing with artificial intelligence, rogerian argument.

• © 2023 by Joseph M. Moxley - Professor of English - USF

Table of Contents

Solving Problems by Negotiating Differences 

How many times have you been in an argument that you knew you couldn’t win? Are you reluctant to change your mind about certain social, political, or personal issues? Do you have an unshakable faith in a particular religion or philosophy? For example, are you absolutely certain that abortion is immoral under all circumstances? Are you categorically against animal experimentation for advancements in medicine? Do you believe that criminals who have tortured and killed people should receive the death penalty? Do you believe that parents should have no more than two children because of the world population problem? Do you believe it is your patriotic duty to buy solely American products?

Some of our beliefs and arguments are based on faith, some on emotion, and some on logic alone. We all hold different religious, p olitical, and personal beliefs that largely define who we are and how we think. Within the past fifty years, as the size of our global village has appeared to shrink with the use of television, fax, and jets, we have become increasingly more sophisticated and knowledgable. As a result, most educated people now realize that few significant issues have simple solutions. Thanks to modern scholarship and research, we have come to realize that our personalities and thoughts are shaped to some degree by cultural expectations. Philosophers have challenged us to recognize that our worlviews – our assumptions about reality, what is good, what is possible – are influenced by our day-to-day experiences. We have realized that truth is nt a fixed, static entity that can be carried into a battle like a banner.

One wonderful aspect of your college career is meeting different worldviews through books and through discussions with people whom you otherwise would not encounter. Indeed, many college campuses offer a wonderful glimpse of the diversity of modern-day life. A wide-eyed glance at students at the university center on my campus, for instance, will show you Chinese students working alongside students from Africa and South America. Young women dressed in their power suits mix freely with returning older adult students. Fraternity brothers rush from place to place, dressed in their blue blazers and short haircuts, while male musicians, dressed in the tie-dyed fashions of the 1960s and shoulder-length hair, play guitars and sing protest songs.

One result of our increasingly sophisticated world is that you cannot assume that your readers will believe or even understand everythinhg you say. On the contrary, you need to assume that your readers will doubt you. They will question the validity of your evidence and test the logic of your conclusions. Modern readers tend to be particularly contentious when you insist on assertions that they find objectionable. Because of this shift in audience attitude, writers need to develop compelling ways of organizing and presenting arguments.

When  you wish to address an emotional and controversial issue and when  your audience is likely to be threatened by  your ideas, you will probably not be successful if you make your claim in the introduction of your essay (or verbal argument). No matter how thoroughly you go on to support your ideas with careful reasoning and to refute other claims (such as those held by your audience) respectfully, your readers have already decided to ignore you. For example, can you imagine how your roomate would respond if you remark that he or she is a terrible slob? Even if you follow up your comment with photographs of the dirty dishes, cluttered rooms, and soild carpet left in his or her wake, can you imagine that the final outcome of your detailed presentation might be resolution? More likely you will face anger, bitterness, and denial. Watch your introductory prepositions!

Most of us tend to resist change and are threatened by ideas that challenge what we believe. Also, most of us dislike being told what to do and how to think, so even if our brains tell us to agree, our emotions (and egos) tell us to shut down and ignore what we are hearing. A male chauvinist who believes that women are intellectually inferior to men will be unlikely to listen to your argument that women are as intelligent as men. Your quotes from world-renowned educators and philosophers and your statistics from the Stanford-Blinet or SAT, GRE, and MCAT scores would probably be dismissed as inaccurate because they threaten his assumptions. Of course, you could hope that the chauvinist would change his mind over time when he wasn’t being pressed, yet you couldn’t bet on this outcome.

Because conflict is inevitable, we need to seek creative ways to solve complicated problems and to negotiate differences between opposing parties. Although there are no simple formulas for bringing opposing factions together, we do have a relatively new form of communication founded on Carl Rogers’s client-centered therapeutic approach to one-on-one and group counseling. Essentially, the Rogerian problem-solving approach reconceptualizes our goals when we argue. Instead of assuming that an author or speaker shoudl hope to overcome an antagonistic audience with shrewd reasoning, the Rogerian approach would have the author or speaker attempt to reach some common ground with the audience. Thus, in a very real way, Rogerian “persuasion” is not a form of persuasion so much as it is a way of opening communication for negotiating common ground between divergent points of view. In terms of writing, we coud say that the Rogerian approach melds the techniques of informative analyses with those of persuasive reports. Your goal when you employ the tactics of Rogerian problem-solving is not for you to win and for your opponent to lose, a scenario that more often results in both parties losing. Instead, you explore ways that will allow both you and your audience to win.

On Rogerian Argument

adapted from Rhetoric Matters: Language and Argument in Context by Megan McIntyre and Curtis Le Van

Rogerian argument is often difficult for students to understand because it asks them to think about controversial topics in a different way: from the perspective of someone they disagree with. The discussions that follow are meant to help  you understand the reason for and the components of an argument in Rogerian style.

On Finding Common Ground 

“On Finding Common Ground” is written by Jeffrey Spicer, University of South Florida

“ It is only through the clash of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.”

– John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

“The major barrier to mutual interpersonal communication is our very natural tendency to judge, to evaluate, to approve or disapprove, the statement of the other person or the other group.”

– Carl Rogers, “Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation,” 1951

argue (v.) – from the Greek argos, lit. “white,” or arguron, lit. “silver,” and meaning “to shine forth”: in contemporary usage, to present reasons for or against.

In 1951, the psychologist Carl Rogers gave a talk at the Centennial Conference on Communications at Northwestern University that changed the way we think about argument. Psychology at that time was dominated by psychologists like B.F. Skinner, who were learning to scientifically condition thoughts and feelings in the same way that Pavlov had conditioned his dogs to salivate at the sound of their dinner bell a half-century before.

Rogers, on the other hand, was a humanist. He believed that human speech and human cognition were interrelated and that the success or failure of one was related to the success or failure of the other. In “Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation,” he put forward as the cornerstone of his practice the belief that “the whole task of psychotherapy is the task of dealing with a failure in communication” (330).

According to Rogers, the principle difficulty preventing people from settling their differences, indeed from communicating effectively in an everyday sense, was that people couldn’t stop evaluating one another. The more important a topic was to them, the more emotional the participants in a discussion became, and the more they were apt to judge what the other person was saying rather than giving it the best hearing they could. In short, Rogers noticed that when people argue, they tend to make judgments about their opponents’ positions before they really understand them.

Rogers’s goal, then, was to avoid this tendency to constantly evaluate and instead to “listen with understanding.” By this, he meant that people should not only try to  understand that someone holds a particular viewpoint but also try to get a sense of what it’s like to believe that. “What does that mean? It means to see the expressed idea and attitude from the other person’s point of view, to sense how it feels to him, to achieve his frame of reference in regard to the thing he is talking about” (Rogers 331-32). Rogers himself acknowledged barriers to this kind of understanding. First and foremost, you have to be willing to try it, and not many people are. Rogers’s approach seems like you’re giving ground to your opponents and, what’s worse, sometimes you actually are. “In the first place, it takes courage […] you run the risk of being changed yourself” (Rogers 333).

It is important to note, though, that this sort of Rogerian understanding is also itself an argumentative tactic. First, people will almost always refuse to consider something if they feel threatened by it, and Rogerian understanding reduces the threat to the opposition. Second, people reciprocate; they tend to treat others as they are treated by them.

Despite the initial difficulties, then, each new understanding of the opponent’s view makes the next easier, while at the same time inviting, even obligating, the opponent to strive for a like understanding. “This procedure can dela with the insincerities, the defensive exaggerations, the lies, the ‘false fronts’ which characterize almost every failure in communication. These defensive distortions drop away with astonishing speed as people find that the only intent is to understand, not judge” (Rogers 336).

This Rogerian process started to make its way into textbooks in 1970. Richard E. Young, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike’s introduction of Rogerian psychology in their book Rhetoric: Discovery and Change seeks to simplify some of Rogers’s terminology and begin to present the process as a set of rhetorical objectives: “The writer who uses the Rogerian strategy attempts to do three things:

• to convey to the reader that he is understood
• to delineate the area within which he believes the reader’s position to be valid
• to induce him to believe that he and the writer share certain moral qualities (275)

Put like this, in such a simple and reductive way, the process of attaining and expressing Rogerian understanding seems almost easy.

It is important to note that these are not developmental steps intended as heuristics, that indeed there are no sequential stages to a Rogerian argument. They are instead objectives to be pursued independently and recursively with the probably effect of facilitating communication. As Young, Becker, and Pike write, “Rogerian argument has no conventional structure; in fact, users of the strategy deliberately avoid conventional persuasive structures and techniques because these devices tend to produce a sense of threat.” This is not to say the argument has no structure, but rather that “the structure is more directly the product of a particular writer, a particular topic, and a particular audience” (275). The danger of argumentative form becoming an exclusionary force, silencing rather than evoking discussion, is therefore greatly reduced.

At this point, then, you may be wondering what Rogerian argument might actually look like in terms of an essay for a composition class. An essay modeled on Rogers’s approach should include a few particular parts:

• a discussion of the problem from both points of view that uses value-neutral language
• a discussion of the writer’s opponent’s point of view and a selection of facts or assertions the writer might be willing to concede to his opponent
• a discussion of the writer’s point of view and a selection of facts or assertions the writer’s opponent might be able to accept about his point of view
• a thesis that establishes a compromise between these two points of view and represents concessions from both the writer and his opponent

Analyzing Pertinent Conventions

Below are some of the strategies that you can use to negotiate consensus between opposing parties. As usual, you should not consider the following to be a rigid formula. Instead, pick and choose from these strategies in light of your audience, purpose, and intended voice.

Present the Problem

In the introduction, identify the issue and clarify its significance. Because you need to adopt a nonthreatening persona throughout your essay, however, avoid dogmatically presenting your view as the best or only way to solve the problem. Unlike your strategy for shaping a conventional persuasive text, at this point in your discussion you will not want to lay your cards on the table and summarize your presentation. Instead, explain the scope and complexity of the issue. You might want to mention the various approaches that people have taken to solve the problemandf perhaps even suggest that the issue is so complicated that the best you and your readers can hope for is consensus – or agreement on some aspect of the matter.

In your introduction and throughout your essay, you will want to explain the problem in ways that will make your audience say, “Yes, this author understands my position.” Because the people whom you are writing for may feel stress when you confront them with an emotionally charged issue and may already have made up their minds firmly on the subject, you should try to interest such reluctant readers by suggesting that you have an innovative way of viewing the problem. Of course, this tactic is effective only when you can indeed follow through and be as original as possible in your treatment of the subject. Otherwise, your readers may reject your ideas because they recognize that you have misrepresented yourself.

Challenge Yourself to Risk Change

Rather than masking your thoughts behind an “objective persona,” the Rogerian approach allows you to express your true feelings. However, if you are to meet the ideals of Rogerian communication, you need to challenge your own beliefs; you must be so open-minded that you truly entertain the possibility that your ideas are wrong, or at least not absolutely right. According to Rogers, you must “run the risk of being changed yourself. You … might find yourself influenced in your attitudes or your personality.”

Elaborate on the Value of Opposing Positions

In this part of your argument you will want to elaborate on which of your opponent’s claims about the problem are correct. For example, if your roommate’s messiness is driving you crazy but you still want to live with him or her, stress that cleanliness is not the be-all-and-end-all of human life. Commend your roommate for helping you focus on your studies and express appreciation for all of the times that he or she has pitched in to clean up. And, of course, you would also want to admit to a few annoying habits of your own, such as taking thirty-minute showers or talking on your cell phone late at night while your roommate is trying to sleep! After viewing the problem from your roommate’s perspective, you might even be willing to explore how your problem with compulsive neatness is itself a problem.

Show Instances When Your Assertions Are Valid

Once you have identified the problem in as nonthreatening a way as possible, established a fair-minded persona, and called for some level of consensus based on a “higher” interest, you have reached the most important stage in Rogerian negotiation: you can now present your position. At this point in your argument, you do not want to slap down a “But!” or “However!” and then come out of your corner punching. Remember the spirit of Rogerian problem solving: your ultimate goal is not to beat your audience, but to communicate with them and to promote a workable compromise. For example, in the sample argument with your roommate, rather than issuing an ultimatum such as “Unless you start picking up after yourself and doing your fair share of the housework, I’m moving out,” you could say, “I realize that you view housekeeping as a less important activity than I do, but I need to let you know that I find your messiness to be highly stressful, and I’m wondering what kind of compromise we can make so we can continue living together.” Yes, this statement carries an implied threat, but note how this sentence is framed positively and minimalizes the emotional intensity inherent in the situation.

To achieve the nonthreatening tone needed to diffuse emotional situations, avoid exaggerating your claims or using biased, emotional language. Also, avoid attacking your audience’s claims as exaggerated. Whenever you feel angry or defensive, take a deep breath and look for points in which you can agree with or understand your opponents. When you are really emotional about an issue, try to cool off enough to recognize where your language is loaded with explosive terms. To embrace the Rogerian approach, remember that you need to defuse your temper and set your pride and ego aside.

Present Your Claim in a Nonthreatening Way

Admittedly, it is difficult to substantiate an argument while acknowledging the value of competing positions. Yet if you have done an effective job in the early part of your essay, then your audience perceives you to be a reasonable person – someone worth listening to. Consequently, you should not sell yourself short when presenting your position.

Because of the emotionally charged context of your communication situation, you still need to maintain the same open-minded persona that you established in the introductory paragraphs. Although your main focus in this section is to develop the validity of your claim, you can maintain your fair-minded persona by recalling significant counterarguments and by elaborating on a few limitations of your claim. You can also remind your readers that you are not expecting them to accept your claim completely. Instead, you are merely attempting to show that under certain circumstances your position is valid.

Search for a Compromise and Call for a Higher Interest

Near the conclusion of your essay, you may find it useful to encourage your audience to seek a compromise with  you under a call for a “higher interest.”

Writing Assignments

The Rogerian method of problem solving is designed for exploring controversial interpersonal, social, and political problems. You can use these techniques to help  you begin or end a personal relationship or to help you effectively communicate with your professors, etc. Knowledge of the Rogerian method can help you deal with instances of sexual discrimination in the workplace or help you encourage insecure authorities to take the action that you want. You could use Rogerian approaches to encourage your classmates and other students at your school to be more sympatheticabout social problems such as poverty and ecological issues. To select a subject for a Rogerian analysis, try reviewing your journal and freewrite about significant interpersonal problems you have dealt with in  your life. Below are a few questions that may help you identify a subject:

• Do I want to write about an interpersonal issue? For example, am I having trouble communicating with someone? Could the breakdown be linked to my failure to employ Rogerian strategies? Are there any major differences in belief that I could bridge by communicating with him or her in a Rogerian way?
• Do I want to write about a social or political problem? Are there any on-campus or work-related problems that I wish to explore? For example, am I worried about an important national issue such as the federal deficit? Or could I promote harmony in a local or campus conflict?
• Are there any sports-related topics that I could tackle? For example, do I want to convince skiers that short skis have carved up the mountain in an ugly way? Do I want to persuade tennis players that we need to throw away the wide-body power rackets and go back to the days of wooden rackets because power tennis is killing finesse tennis?
• Consider playing the role of a marketing executive. Find a new product that you believe is superior to an established product and then write some advertising copy that explains why people should shirt their loyalty to the new product.

Prewriting and Drafting Strategies

Analyze Your Communication Situation

To help you get a handle on which claims you are willing to relinquish and which you wish to negotiate, write a profile of your anticipated audience. Because awareness of the opinions and fears of your audience is so crucial to successfully negotiating differences among competing positions, you need to try to “become” your audience. As usual, this process involves asking, “What do my readers believe and know about the subject? Why do they think and feel my position is wrong?” Ideally, this process extends beyond merely considering your audience’s needs to seting aside your thoughts and feelings and embracing the opposition’s notions about the subject.

After you have gotten “under the skin” of your audience, freewrite an essay about your subject from their perspective. Doing this in a Rogerian way means that you truly challenge your own beliefs and present your opponent’s viewpoints as strongly as you would your own. If you find yourself unwilling to explore the strengths of your opponent’s position, then you should select a new subject.

Write an Outline

After freewriting about your opponent’s positions as if they were your own, you will probably have excellent ideas about  how best to shape your essay. Youmay find it useful to jot down your objectives as suggested in the following outline. Remember, though, don’t let the outline control your thoughts. If insights occur while you are writing, experiment with them.

• Explain the issue’s significance and scope
• In what ways are the major assumptions of the opposing position valid?
• In what ways are your assumptions invalid and valid?
• What consensus can your establish?

Revising and Editing Strategies

By analyzing the strengths and weaknesses that your classmates and instructor have identified in past papers, you can know what special problems you shoud look for when evaluating your persuasive essay. As always, give yourself as much time as possible between drafts. Below I have listed some questions that highlight special concerns you will need to address when writing your Rogerian essay.

Is the Subject Appropriate for a Rogerian Approach?

A day or so after you have completed the first draft of your essay, reread it from the perspective of your intended audience. To conduct an honest self-evaluation, try to answer the following questions:

• In the introduction, have I truly been open-minded? Have I thoroughly reviewed the strengths of my opponent’s counterarguments? Have I honestly challenged the weaknesses of my own position?
• How could I change the essay to make it less emotionally charged?
• Are the transitions from the opposing position to my position as smooth as possible?
• When I present my claims, do I sound informed, intelligent, compassionate? What additional data would help my readers better understand my position? Do I need more facts and figures? Can I incorporate more outside quotations to substantiate my argument?
• Have I successfully limited my analysis and elaborated on one specific, significant claim? Have I presented my position clearly and accurately?
• Is the compromise I have suggested reasonable? Can I be more original in my call for a higher interest?

Read Your Work Aloud

Before submitting your essay to your peers or teacher, read it aloud to yourself several times. As you read, make a note of passages that seem difficult to read or sound awkward. Question whether the tone in the paragraphs is appropriate, given your audience and purpose. For example, can you find any passages that sound insincere or condescending?

Share Your Work with People Who Disagree with You

Ask people with different viewpoints from yours to critique your work. Let them know that you are attempting to seek a compromise between your position and theirs and that you welcome their suggestions.

Do a Criteria-Based Evaluation

In addition to making notes on criticisms of your text and ideas for improving it, you may find the following criteria-based format a useful way of identifying and correcting any weaknesses in your peers’ drafts or your own.

• Rogerian Appeals
• Author establishes an emphatic persona and avoid threatening challenges
• Author clarifies instances in which opposing assertions are valid
• Author show instances when assertions are valid
• Author develops claim in as nonthreatening way as possible
• Author seeks compromise and calls for an higher interest

(Low)          (Middle)          (High)

1 2 3             4 5 6             7 8 9 10

II. Substantive Revision

• The document is reader-based
• The tone is appropriate given the audience and purpose
• The document is organized and formatted effectively
• The paragraphs are coherent and cohesive

III. Edited Document

• Unnecessary jargon and awkward abstractions have been edited
• To be verbs have been eliminiated
• A high verb-to-noun ration has been established
• Strings of prepositions have been avoided
• The document has been edited for economy
• The document has been copyedited for grammatical, mechanical, and formatting errors

Evaluating Criticism

When your professor returns your Rogerian report to you, take a few moments to reflect on your growth as a writer. To help put your role as “apprentice” in perspective, you may find it useful to consider the following questions in your Writing and Research Notebook:

• What have you learned about yourself as a writer as a result of writing your Rogerian essay?
• In what ways has your knowledge of Rogerian negotiation and problem solving influenced how you will make oral and written arguments in the future? When writing this report, did you find your original point of view softening?
• Based on your peers’ and teacher’s responses to your work, what goals will you set for your next writing assignment?

Brevity - Say More with Less

Clarity (in Speech and Writing)

Coherence - How to Achieve Coherence in Writing

Flow - How to Create Flow in Writing

Inclusivity - Inclusive Language

The Elements of Style - The DNA of Powerful Writing

Recommended

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

Structured Revision – How to Revise Your Work

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Authority & Credibility – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Research, Speech & Writing

Citation Guide – Learn How to Cite Sources in Academic and Professional Writing

Page Design – How to Design Messages for Maximum Impact

Suggested edits.

• Please select the purpose of your message. * - Corrections, Typos, or Edits Technical Support/Problems using the site Advertising with Writing Commons Copyright Issues I am contacting you about something else
• Your full name
• Your email address *
• Page URL needing edits *
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Other Topics:

Citation - Definition - Introduction to Citation in Academic & Professional Writing

• Joseph M. Moxley

Explore the different ways to cite sources in academic and professional writing, including in-text (Parenthetical), numerical, and note citations.

Collaboration - What is the Role of Collaboration in Academic & Professional Writing?

Collaboration refers to the act of working with others or AI to solve problems, coauthor texts, and develop products and services. Collaboration is a highly prized workplace competency in academic...

Genre may reference a type of writing, art, or musical composition; socially-agreed upon expectations about how writers and speakers should respond to particular rhetorical situations; the cultural values; the epistemological assumptions...

Grammar refers to the rules that inform how people and discourse communities use language (e.g., written or spoken English, body language, or visual language) to communicate. Learn about the rhetorical...

Information Literacy - Discerning Quality Information from Noise

Information Literacy refers to the competencies associated with locating, evaluating, using, and archiving information. In order to thrive, much less survive in a global information economy — an economy where information functions as a...

Mindset refers to a person or community’s way of feeling, thinking, and acting about a topic. The mindsets you hold, consciously or subconsciously, shape how you feel, think, and act–and...

Rhetoric: Exploring Its Definition and Impact on Modern Communication

Learn about rhetoric and rhetorical practices (e.g., rhetorical analysis, rhetorical reasoning,  rhetorical situation, and rhetorical stance) so that you can strategically manage how you compose and subsequently produce a text...

Style, most simply, refers to how you say something as opposed to what you say. The style of your writing matters because audiences are unlikely to read your work or...

The Writing Process - Research on Composing

The writing process refers to everything you do in order to complete a writing project. Over the last six decades, researchers have studied and theorized about how writers go about...

Writing Studies

Writing studies refers to an interdisciplinary community of scholars and researchers who study writing. Writing studies also refers to an academic, interdisciplinary discipline – a subject of study. Students in...

Featured Articles

How to Write a Rogerian Essay

As a college student, you are more likely to face a lot of issues on your academic path. One such problem is definitely academic writing papers. There is hardly a student who does not ask themselves, “How to write my term paper ?” or “How to write my APA paper ?” or any other how-to questions concerning all the college writing assignments. 

Of course, with modern technologies, students have access to a large number of tools that can help them handle their issues, and our professional writing service is no exception because many students entrust their “ do my essay ” requests to us, and we appreciate their trust. But, if you can’t afford our assistance, you can always get all the needed writing assistance for free on our blog.

A Rogerian essay is a type of argumentative essay. It was named after American psychologist Carl Rogers, who proposed a new theory of argumentation. This approach can be successfully used for sensitive and highly controversial issues. It allows the arguer to persuade the public with minimal risk of hostility. The main idea of this theory is to show respect to other sides of the issue and find a compromise.

What is a Rogerian essay

What is the difference between the middle ground argument and a Rogerian argument? The middle ground argument takes a middle position between the main opposing positions on the issue. The Rogerian argument instead finds the optimal position for disagreeing sides with the aim to find a compromise that will suit all parties.

So, let’s see what you need to do to write an excellent Rogerian essay in the next section.

6 steps on how to write a Rogerian essay

Working on any college paper, you have to follow a certain route in order to come up with a strong paper that discloses the central issue to the fullest. Thus, no matter whether you have come to us with your “ write my dissertation ” request, or you are asking “How to write my research paper ?” in any way, you will need to follow the specific steps.  To write a good Rogerian essay you will need to pass through the following six steps.

1. Find the topic. Commonly, teachers give a certain topic, but sometimes students are allowed to pick the topic by themselves. Find an interesting and quite controversial topic like tobacco advertising, euthanasia, social media dependence, etc. Make sure that the topic is also interesting to your intended audience.

2. Write the introduction. Attract the reader with a catchy beginning. Then you need to depict the problem (or issue) and how it affects both you and your readers. Give background information on the issue and add as many details as you can to make a full picture of the discussed issue. Don’t criticize or use bias.

3. Describe the opposing point of view . Here you need to represent the issue from the common perspective, including beliefs and ideas of your intended audience. Define the circumstances when the opposing point of view is valid. Keep a neutral tone. Find out the following points:

• the warrant
• the main reasons for each viewpoint
• the beliefs and values of each party

4. Present your own point of view. In this section you can state your own position. Define the circumstances when your point of view is valid. Add support and the main reasons to support your position. Think what values and beliefs you share with the opposing side. Make sure that the opposition will feel comfortable with how you present your position.

5. Write the conclusion. It’s time to show off the compromise. Here you need to state how adopting your position or moving at least towards it will benefit the audience. Show how you position will meet the values of both sides.

6. Proofread the first draft. Is the paper well-structured? Are grammar and spelling correct? Are references cited correctly? Is the paper a pleasure to read? Check all these points while write my college essay process.  Well, even though we have dedicated these steps to a Rogerian essay, you can easily follow these steps when writing college essays on other topics. If you were looking for some assistance with your women rights essay or a point of view essay , you can still follow these steps to adjust the content to the needed issue. 

Rogerian essay structure

In most cases, the structures of academic papers are similar, but some types of papers may require extra sections. If you have faced the “I have no idea how to write my college essay ” issue, this section will definitely answer your question. Each argumentative model has its own structure to lead the conversation and reach the desired aim successfully. The typical structure of a Rogerian essay consists of four parts.

• Introduction. Why should we care?
• Summary of opposing views. Why do others care about the issue?
• Statement of position. Why do you care about the issue?
• Resolution. What can be done to resolve the issue considering all sides?

Let’s see how the Rogerian essay may look on a brief example to understand the structure. The essay below is written about the issue of whether models should be skinny. Each section has a heading to help you better understand the essay structure. Consider that assignments usually don’t require a title to each paragraph.

Introduction.

The modern fashion industry follows specific parameters of models. These parameters have changed over the years, and recently most fashion models are between 172cm to 180cm and wear extra small to small sizes. Models feel the pressure of the fashion industry and use all possible ways to remain skinny and meet the standards. As a result, many of them struggle from anorexia and bulimia.

Opposite point of view.

It is crucial for the design houses that all the models fit one size, as fashion houses create the collection in one size. Designers can’t make clothes to fit a particular model, unless it’s a supermodel. Moreover, most of the clothes look good on skinny, tall, and well-shaped women.

Personal point of view.

A recent study published in the International Journal of Eating Disorders has shown that models experience serious eating problems due to the unhealthy weight control in fashion houses. Today topics about fashion models are associated with anorexia and bulimia. Girls and young women feel the pressure of being skinny, and as a result struggle from eating disorders and suicide.

Conclusion.

If the society wants to fix the situation that has occurred in the fashion industry, fashion houses around the world should apply other principles in the fashion industry to control the health of models and pay great attention to creating the right image of models. People need to understand that to be a model you need to keep a healthy lifestyle, take regular exercise, and have a well-balanced diet.

In this example the author has earned the credibility of the audience by presenting the opponent’s position and presenting facts from the recent studies to justify their own point of view. The author demonstrates and understands the situation in the fashion industry and delicately proposes the solution.

Examples of Rogerian essay arguments

Tips on how to write a Rogerian essay

When working on a college paper, it is quite important to keep in mind some essential tips that can help you compose a strong paper. It does not matter whether you need “ write my PowerPoint presentation ” help or you are looking for any other “ write my assignmen t” assistance; these tips will work. 

• Don’t choose a topic you are passionate about. It will be more likely that you won’t be objective.
• Always research about opposite beliefs. Don’t rely on your knowledge about the common thought.
• Find common ground to pin down common values and goals. To make everything clear, you need to acknowledge the opposite position fully.
• Point out the shared values of opposing viewpoints and your own. This will honor the opposing side and show that you are interested in earnest conversation.
• Pick a controversial issue for the Rogerian essay. It will be much easier to find a compromise for a case when the sides are far apart.
• Keep a neutral, objective, and fair-minded attitude to the opposing point of view. Avoid judging and rebutting the opposing side.
• The final “product” of the Rogerian essay is a compromise. It’s not a one-sided resolution, as it can’t be beneficial only for one side.
• Consider the drawbacks to all of the sides. This will show that you are viewing the situation from various sides and seek an optimal solution.
• Always show the benefits of your argument even if it cannot entirely solve the issue. Point out the work that should be done to achieve the desired solution.

Rogerian essay example

We understand that students are often pressed for money, and they contact us asking, “Can you write my paper for cheap ?”, thus, we decided to do everything possible to help these college learners get quality assistance. On one hand, students can get partial assistance with their academic duties and order specific parts of their assignments. For example, if you come to us with your “ write my coursework ” request, but the final price is too high for you, you can choose which part of the paper is the most difficult for you and order simply this part of your coursework. 

Moreover, you can always get free samples on our website.  Here we are glad to share with you a full sample of a Rogerian essay written by one of our authors. The essay topic discusses the use of mobile phones while driving.

People Using Mobile Phones While Driving on the Highway

Mobile phones have interfered in almost every sphere of modern life and have become an essential part of our culture. They appear to be a convenient way to stay in contact. Whether people decide to have dinner, visit the cinema, or go to the supermarket, mobile phones pursue them everywhere. However, there are some places where using a cell phone is not only undesirable but also impermissible. Drivers who use mobile phones put at risk themselves, their passengers, and all people on the road.

A mobile phone is considered to be a distractive factor which disturbs a person who drives a car. Distractive factors also include smoking, eating, and other people in the car. It is stated that in 2009, “a total of 995 people died in fatal crashes that involved reports of a cell phone as a distraction” (“Traffic Safety Facts Research Note”). A temptation to answer a phone call may confuse even experienced drivers who usually respect traffic rules. The driver who killed Jennifer Smith’s mother had never been punished for speeding and was sober at the moment of the crash, but he hadn’t even noticed the color of the traffic light on the crossroads (“Think Before You Speak”). It is very hard to acknowledge that a simple phone call can end someone’s life. A terrifying fact is that the usage of mobile phones only increases, and the number of accidents increases as well. Unfortunately, the relevance of this problem is undoubtable and will remain so in the nearest future.

Nevertheless, public opinion on this problem is somewhat controversial. About 68 percent of the respondents believe that drivers mustn’t use mobile phones (“Should People Be Able to Talk on Their Cell Phone While They Are Driving?”). It is emphasized that in the case of an emergency, drivers have only a few seconds to perform a maneuver. Not every driver can react properly in this situation, even without distractions. And the usage of a mobile phone in an emergency situation deprives the driver of valuable seconds to make a decision and significantly increases the risk of an accident. But about 32 percent disagree with their opinion. They claim that a mobile phone is only one of the distractive factors, and its impact is not bigger than adjusting a radio, eating while driving, or talking to passengers. Some of them allege that speaking on the phone with family members helps to keep themselves focused during long, exhausting trips. But even those who support the idea of free usage of mobile phones while driving agree that texting must be explicitly forbidden. There are several other positions which are accepted by both of the parties to the conflict. There is a consensus that drivers should be allowed to use mobile phones in emergency situations. For example, when someone’s life depends on the call, a driver must be able to call 911 to report about the accident. Also, both groups are inclined to believe that the Bluetooth technology, which gives drivers an opportunity to use a mobile phone without hands, may be a good solution to the problem.

Even though people have certain beliefs concerning the problem of the usage of mobile phones while driving, many of them are rather doubtful. It is necessary to notice that the distraction itself is manifested in two ways. A mobile phone becomes an additional item in the driver’s hand, so that the driver has only one hand to control the vehicle. But the main problem is that the conversation deflects the driver’s attention. The Bluetooth technology may be useful to free the driver’s hands, but it doesn’t make talking on the cellphone equal to talking with a passenger. A passenger is able to monitor the situation on the road and to understand whether speaking with the driver is safe or if it is better not to distract them. Furthermore, it was found that “merely listening to somebody speak on the phone led to a 37% decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, where spatial tasks are processed” (Spice). As a result, speaking on the mobile phone places an additional burden on the human brain. The Bluetooth technology does not remove the risk of a crash entirely. Furthermore, a delusion of safety attracts people who are originally against talking on mobile phones while driving. As a consequence, hands-free conversation technology only increases the number of traffic accidents.

The danger of mobile phone use while driving cannot be overvalued, but placing an outright ban on it seems to be impractical. Such law would be very difficult to control. It is almost impossible to distinguish whether the driver looks down, or uses a cellular phone for texting. Drivers should have an opportunity to use a mobile phone in some specific cases. And that is how another problematic issue arises. Police will face a variety of complexities identifying whether the use of a mobile phone is justified. Even current data on the number of crashes involved using a phone is not accurate enough because not every driver admits to using a phone. Although there is no definite solution to this problem, it still must be regulated by the government.

If the government is unable to control the use of mobile phones by drivers, some alternative variants should be reviewed. As mentioned earlier, delegating the phone’s tasks to a car is not a good idea. It only creates new objects of distraction for a driver. Instead of this, a good idea would be to limit cell phone functions which distract the driver the most. For example, a special program could be implemented that starts when a car begins to move and restricts the access to calls, social media, texting, and other distractive applications. As a result, it will “disable all communication between the phone and the outside world, with the exceptions of GPS, navigation apps, and emergency notifications” (Chabris). Unfortunately, drivers will not appreciate such innovations. Consequently, they must be motivated to use it. Moreover, this innovation must be introduced in driving schools and enshrined in traffic rules.

Numerous crashes that included mobile phones as a distractive factor stress the relevance of the problem. The use of mobile phones during driving puts in danger all road users. It may be as dangerous as drunk driving. Despite the fact that the use of mobile phones during driving cannot be banned entirely, the government must take measures to reduce the number of victims of traffic accidents. Perhaps officials should pay attention to alternative solutions. Anyway, the situation is unlikely to change until drivers become entirely aware of their responsibility. When they realize that answering a call is not as important as human life, the number of traffic accidents will significantly decrease, and thousands of people will continue to enjoy their lives.

Works Cited

Chabris, Daniel. “A Simple Solution for Distracted Driving.” WSJ , 2018, www.wsj.com/articles/a-simple-solution-for-distracted-driving-1446218317. Accessed 16 Aug 2018. “Should People Be Able to Talk on Their Cell Phone While They Are Driving?” Debate.org , 2018, www.debate.org/opinions/should-people-be-able-to-talk-on-their-cell-phone- while-they-are-driving. Accessed 16 Aug 2018. Spice, Byron. “March 5: Carnegie Mellon Study Shows Just Listening to Cell Phones Significantly Impairs Drivers.” Cmu.edu, 2008, www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2008/March/march5_drivingwhilelistening.shtml. Accessed 16 Aug 2018. “Think Before You Speak.” The Economist , 2011, www.economist.com/united-states/2011/04/14/think-before-you-speak?story_id=18561075. Accessed 16 Aug 2018. “Traffic Safety Facts Research Note.” Crashstats.Nhtsa.Dot.gov , 2010, crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811379. Accessed 16 Aug 2018.

Rogerian essay writing help

Finding the compromises will help you in your life. We hope that our guide and samples will help you create a strong Rogerian essay. If you will find it hard to write the essay on your own, you can always ask our human expert writers for help, not to be caught with AI detector for essays . EssayShark essay writing service writers can create well-written and argumentative essays on any topic.

Whether you need ideas for informal essay topics or you are looking for professional “ write my personal statement ” assistance, with our expert staff, any of your requests are always in trustworthy hands.

Fill out the order form and get prompt help 24/7.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

What our customers say

Our website uses secure cookies. More details

Get professional help from best writers right from your phone

Grab our 3 e-books bundle for $27 FREE

Rhetorical Analysis

Rogerian argument.

Carl Rogers

The Rogerian argument, inspired by the influential psychologist Carl Rogers, aims to find compromise on a controversial issue.

If you are using the Rogerian approach your introduction to the argument should accomplish three objectives:

• Introduce the author and work Usually, you will introduce the author and work in the first sentence, as in this example: In Dwight Okita’s “In Response to Executive Order 9066,” the narrator addresses an inevitable by-product of war – racism. The first time you refer to the author, refer to him or her by his or her full name. After that, refer to the author by last name only. Never refer to an author by his or her first name only.
• Provide the audience a short but concise summary of the work to which you are responding Remember, your audience has already read the work you are responding to. Therefore, you do not need to provide a lengthy summary. Focus on the main points of the work to which you are responding and use direct quotations sparingly. Direct quotations work best when they are powerful and compelling.
• State the main issue addressed in the work   Your thesis, or claim, will come after you summarize the two sides of the issue.

The Introduction

The following is an example of how the introduction of a Rogerian argument can be written. The topic is racial profiling.

Once you have written your introduction, you must now show the two sides to the debate you are addressing. Though there are always more than two sides to a debate, Rogerian arguments put two in stark opposition to one another. Summarize each side, then provide a middle path. Your summary of the two sides will be your first two body paragraphs. Use quotations from outside sources to effectively illustrate the position of each side.

An outline for a Rogerian argument might look like this:

• Introduction

Since the goal of Rogerian argument is to find a common ground between two opposing positions, you must identify the shared beliefs or assumptions of each side. In the example above, both sides of the racial profiling issue want the U.S. A solid Rogerian argument acknowledges the desires of each side, and tries to accommodate both. Again, using the racial profiling example above, both sides desire a safer society, perhaps a better solution would focus on more objective measures than race; an effective start would be to use more screening technology on public transportation. Once you have a claim that disarms the central dispute, you should support the claim with evidence, and quotations when appropriate.

Quoting Effectively

Remember, you should quote to illustrate a point you are making. You should not, however, quote to simply take up space. Make sure all quotations are compelling and intriguing: Consider the following example. In “The Danger of Political Correctness,” author Richard Stein asserts that, “the desire to not offend has now become more important than protecting national security” (52). This statement sums up the beliefs of those in favor of profiling in public places.

The Conclusion

Your conclusion should:

• Bring the essay back to what is discussed in the introduction
• Tie up loose ends
• End on a thought-provoking note

The following is a sample conclusion:

Taken from Michael Franco’s PowerPoint Presentation Writing Essay 4: Rogerian Argument

• Rogerian Argument. Provided by : Utah State University. Located at : http://ocw.usu.edu/English/introduction-to-writing-academic-prose/rogerian-argument.html . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Image of Carl Rogers. Authored by : Didius. Provided by : Wikimedia. Located at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carl_Ransom_Rogers.jpg . License : CC BY: Attribution