Reference no: EM131599316

Question: As an Early Step, Write a "Conversation" Between Two Sources

Write about a three-page explanation of how two different sources look at your topic differently (you may make it longer, if you wish). As you did in the Rhetorical Analysis, explain what each source is saying, but do it in a more compressed way. Explain each one, one at a time.

Explain how what the second source is saying helps us understand the first source differently. Then explain what research you need to do in order to learn more.

We will discuss possible formats in class, but below are two outline models from which you might choose.

Imaginative Approach to Research "Conversation"

I. Acting as a moderator who is starting a podcast or blog discussion, explain to the audience what the topic is. Frame the issue (think of cultural narratives that are at play and some of the rhetorical strategies that stakeholders use to explain the issues), say what is at stake, explain who some of the stakeholders are, and introduce the two people who will be conversing on the topic.

II. Using the "voice" of one of the sources, explain the issue from their perspective and the reasoning behind this perspective.

III. Using the "voice" of a second source, explain the issue from their perspective and the reasoning behind this perspective. In this case, ALSO respond to what the first "speaker" said.

IV. Start to wrap up and say goodbye to your audience by commenting on what just was said. As the moderator, give your audience satisfying sense of how these two perspectives shape an understanding of the topic.

V. Tell your audience the next steps you plan to take as a researcher who wants to focus on key parts of this topic. Tell your audience what your next source will be and where it will come from.

More Traditional Academic Approach to Research "Conversation"

I. Acting as a moderator who guiding their readers through an understanding of the topic you are researching, explain to the audience what the topic is. Frame the issue (think of cultural narratives that are at play and some of the rhetorical strategies that stakeholders use to explain the issues), say what is at stake, explain who some of the stakeholders are, and introduce the two people who will be conversing on the topic.

II. Explain how one of the sources frames the issue; using some of the set up technique that you used in the RA, explain the issue from their perspective and the reasoning behind this perspective.

III. Explain how a second source frames the issue; using some of the set up technique that you used in the RA, explain the issue from their In this case, ALSO explain how, if the second source were responding to first, how would the second source explain the ways they agree and disagree. In particular, how would a second source put more emphasis on things the first source just mentioned briefly, and how would the second source explain the limitations on some of the things the first source presented as central to the issue.

IV. Start to wrap up for your audience by pulling back and commenting on the "conversation" you just explained. Call particular attention to key thoughts that you feel your readers should keep in mind as they consider this topic and your research. As the moderator, give your audience satisfying sense of how these two perspectives shape an understanding of the topic.

V. Tell your audience the next steps you plan to take as a researcher who wants to focus on key parts of this topic. Tell your audience what your next source will be and where it will come from.

SO MY SOURCES ARE BELOW. Its relating to TECH AND POLITICS: A WHODUNIT

1. Bump, Philip. "Analysis | Here's the public evidence that supports the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election." The Washington Post. WP Company, 06 July 2017. Web. 25 July 2017.

2. AlterNet, Medea Benjamin / William D. Hartung / TomDispatch, Juan Cole / Informed Comment, Allen Barra and Elaine Margolin. "U.S. Intelligence Veterans Believe the "Russian Hack' of DNC Computers May Have Been an Inside Job." Truthdig. N.p., 24 July 2017. Web. 25 July 2017.

3. Norris, Pippa. Why American Elections Are Flawed (and How to Fix Them). Ithaca: Cornell Selects, an imprint of Cornell U Press, 2016. Print