Progress Report #1

To: Dr. Holmevik
From: Amy Jessee

Introduction
This MAPC thesis proposal explores the connections between organizational narrative and strategic communication through the genre of profiles. I will conduct a textual and visual analysis of profiles used by universities on their websites or print publications.

Work Completed
At this point in the writing process, I’ve completed an analysis of the rhetorical situation with an emphasis on the audience. Through in-class worksheets, I’ve evaluated my proposal idea to see if it will be accepted as fulfillment of the MAPC program requirements, and I’ve focused on my thesis committee as the primary audience to which the proposal will be addressed. Within this primary audience, I’ve identified Dr. Williams as my committee chair and a member of the gatekeeper audience, and due to his current teaching assignment in Spain, I’ve asked Dr. Hilligoss, my assistantship director, to serve as my point of contact for the summer months. By analyzing the situation or context, I now have a good understanding of what I am going to do and who I will be writing for, even if the details of my proposal are still in the research stage. For the literature review, I’ve completed extensive research on strategic communication for a previous course, particularly concerning brand identity, issue management, and auto-communication, and I believe I have the necessary background in rhetoric and identification and in the methodology of critical discourse analysis should I chose to use these theoretical approaches.

Next Steps
For next week, I hope to complete research on the narrow subject of my proposals: the profile genre. While I have first-hand experience composing profiles, I have done little investigative research in the history of the genre and its prevalence in university websites. Since I’m also interested in the visual components, I should add more research about this aspect as well, and I hope to narrow down my research methodology as I review the literature about the subject. At this point I have some concerns about tackling a new research area, but I am excited to learn more about a genre that I enjoy writing. I know that my challenges will include be finding the seminal articles in the field to establish my credibility since I’m a relatively new scholar; culling down the information into my own words and ideas so that my literature review is not quote-heavy nor too long for a 10-page thesis proposal; and working on the overall structure of the proposal even as I draft the first section. I want to make sure my proposal is a cohesive strong argument that lays the groundwork for my next year of study.

Conclusion
At this point, I am pleased with my progress on the project. I’ve selected a topic that I am truly interested in on both academic and professional levels, and I think I’ve identified a research gap that will hopefully result in a publishable piece of work. I’m grateful for the comments of the class, and their helpful advice about the rhetorical situation and my own ideas. This supportive structure and the time constraints of the class not only mirror an actual proposal writing situation, but also force me to get my thoughts on paper and move forward with my grand schemes for research.

Writing Proposals - Chapter 2

First I want to compare the distinction between solicited and unsolicited proposals to that of Bitzer’s and Vatz’ notions of the rhetorical situation. In Bitzer’s version the rhetorical situation exists on its own and precedes the corresponding rhetoric, much like the RFP exists before the proposal. On the other hand, Vatz believes that the utterance or rhetoric invites the exigence, similar to the unsolicited proposal creating a need for the proposal itself. I think this is an interesting difference, especially because Vatz gives more responsibility to the rhetor and the choices he/she makes. For proposal writing, we might also want to consider Cosigny’s view of the rhetorical situation, which mediates the control vs. creation dichotomy. In this version, a rhetor cannot create situations arbitrarily; consequently, even unsolicited proposals must arise from some context, such as a meeting or conversation.

For my other two topics, I want to compare proposals to other genres: newspapers and resumes. Our book suggests using the journalist’s method of the five-W and how to determine the statis, and I wonder if we can also learn additional methods from journalists, specifically concerning the style of proposals. As I recall from my undergraduate journalism classes, journalists consider the ABC’s of writing, namely accuracy, brevity, and clarity. To what extent should proposals share these concerns? I think proposals need to be accurate, at least to our best knowledge of the “facts” at the time. They certainly should be clear; otherwise, reviewers will stop reading and approval or funding would be out of the question. Thus, I think brevity is the one aspect with remaining questions. How brief should proposals be considering the page requirements, reader’s selective reading habits, and the amount of detail necessary to convey our ideas?

In addition to being concise in length of the proposal itself, I also have questions about sentence and word length, as well as word choice. Specifically, should proposals avoid jargon and instead use common terms? While this detail certainly depends on the audience, word choice might have additional aspects much like resumes or job applications, where only those documents with key words move to the next stage. If letters of inquiry are similar to application letters in that both need to be tailored to the audience, then we might examine how proposals also need to meet keyword requirements.