How much time do they spend in move 1? (reviewing scholarship, establishing the terrain, convincing us of the topic’s importance in terms of: knowledge in the field, practice in the world, and/or social problems). If there’s not a lot of move 1 in the article, why might that be? If there is a TON of move 1 in the article, why might that be? In other words, Why do some authors decide to spend more time establishing the terrain and convincing us it’s a worthy topic?
Is move 1 “the problem,” in which case, move 2 is more or less assumed? Same question with “solution”? What does that tell you about persuasion in your discipline?
Does move 1 appeal to a broader audience or just a narrow group? It can be VERY persuasive in certain disciplines to appeal only to a narrow group, without concern about broader connections. Why is this? In other cases, a more broad, general move 1 might be used. Why would that be more persuasive in this case?
Is move 1 only in one spot, or do they have multiple move 1s, returning to it over and over again?
For your third layer of bread, look for striking word choices in the quotes you use to discuss Move 1.
Looking at the list of Move 2s from our lecture, which sub-move seems predominant? Would you characterize it as “nuanced” and “qualified,” or is it extremely bold? WHY might authors may get away with a more bold Move 2, or conversely, WHY might they need to be more humble and qualified about the “gap”? If they make a Bold move 2, have they done enough of Move 1 to make this boldness seem appropriate/convincing/persuasive?
To understand how Move 2 works, try putting the strategy in your own words, or “in a nutshell.” Then reflect on the strategy.
To rhetorically critique Move 2, also consider the list of “tropes” and the rhetorical concepts discussed. Which apply here?
Consider the values and value conflicts you see as authors make their move 2. It’s a key indication of what is valued in your discipline. Does the other article make the same value appeal? If so, what does that teach you? Does another author make a different value appeal? What does that say? Can you trace conflicts between competing values in the discipline? What does that tell you…? And so on…
REFINE and SYNTHESIZE your theme:
After you’ve made some observations, pick the most interesting compare or contrast point you see. Hint: it’s interesting if it requires explanation and is a little complex, goes against “what you would think,” or seems a little strange. Make THAT the theme of your paper and explain the details in your argument, using skillful and selective paraphrase, quoting, and analysis.
Conflict between Urgent Need (social, practical) and Insufficient Knowledge
Conflict betweenGrowing/New Trend (social, practical) and lack of scholarly Attention to “Respond to” that Trend (Timeliness/Kairos)
Contradiction between Existing Theories and Actual Data (Or Empirical Knowledge)
Contradiction between Academic Focus and Real World Practice (Or Need)
Need for Integration between two scholarly areas for the benefit of both (or to address a unique problem)
Value appeals: Complexity, Elegance, Utility, Social Good, Efficiency, Advancement, Innovation
Ethos: How does the writing make the author seem credible? Knowledgeable? Authoritative?
Pathos: Believe it or not, there are emotions at play in some of these moves. Urgency, Fear, Triumph, Heroism, Shame or Guilt (need to rectify a bad legacy). They will be subtle, but can be detected.
Logos: the logical fit whereby the discussion of the “Territory” leads to the “Gap” or “Problem” which warrants the Study.
Amplify versus Narrow: Does the author go big and broad? Or aggressively narrow down? Which method do they use to make their topic seem important? Believe it or not, both these moves (go big, narrow down) can be used to persuade us of a topic’s importance.