Introduction to the Creative Challenge

In this third assignment, you will apply and extend the analytical skills developed in your previous work—Rhetorical Analysis of PTC Research Journals and Information Visualization: How Do Epistemological Assumptions Shape the Research Practices of Methodological Communities?—to examine the internal structures of individual research articles in the field of Professional and Technical Communication (PTC). Specifically, you will analyze how research questions are formulated, how literature reviews are constructed, and how citation practices are employed within peer-reviewed PTC research articles. This analysis will enhance your understanding of how scholarly arguments are developed and situated within existing conversations, thereby fostering critical thinking and information literacy skills.

John Swales’ (1990) CARS (Create a Research Space) model provides a useful framework for analyzing research genres. By applying this model, students can critically assess how authors position their research within the existing scholarly discourse.​ The model outlines three rhetorical moves:

1. establishing a territory,
2. identifying a niche, and
3. occupying that niche.

Kenneth Bruffee’s (1984) concept of collaborative learning emphasizes the social nature of knowledge construction. Bruffee argues that learning is inherently a social process, and that collaborative learning practices can bridge the gap between individual cognition and communal knowledge. Analyzing how authors engage with existing literature and cite sources allows students to discern the collaborative aspects of scholarly writing.​

Carolyn Miller’s (1984) perspective on genre as social action further informs this assignment. Miller posits that genres are typified rhetorical actions that arise from and respond to recurring social situations. Understanding genres in this way enables you to see how research articles function within the broader context of methodological communities.​

By engaging with these theoretical frameworks, you will develop a nuanced understanding of the conventions that govern scholarly writing in PTC. This assignment will equip you with the analytical tools necessary to critically evaluate research articles and to contribute thoughtfully to academic conversations.

Deliverables

This assignment has two deliverables:

1. Research Notes (Part 1). Your goal in this assignment is to engage in rhetorical analysis, genre analysis, and citation analysis, which are textual research methods, to analyze the research questions, literature reviews, and citation practices of three studies published by researchers in the professional and technical communication field.
2. Reflection. Following your completion of Part 1 of your Research Notes, you are expected to reflect on what you’ve learned about the PTC community based on the journal and articles you reviewed.

Why Does this Creative Challenge Matter?

In order to avoid being duped by misinformation as a citizen or knowledge worker, you need to be able to differentiate quality information from misinformation & rhetrickery. In turn, to conduct research studies you need to

1. learn how to engage in rhetorical, genre, and citation analysis
2. understand the conventions that govern how investigators from different methodological communities (Creatives, Designers, Interpreters (Qualitative Researchers), Scientists (Quantitative Empiricists), Synthesizers (Mixed Methods Researchers), Scholars (Textual Researchers)) shape research questions, literature reviews, and citations .

To achieve their goals, people can lie. In research contexts, scholars can make up sources or misrepresent sources. By peer-reviewing scholarly and scientific research studies, publishers attempt to doublecheck claims to weed out bias, academic dishonesty, and unethical behavior. Yet mistakes still happen. For example, consider Peter Navarro’s use of fictional sources to substantiate his argument that the U.S. needs stronger tariffs against China. Peter Navarro, President Trumps White House trade adviser and longtime academic, repeatedly bolstered his anti‑China arguments by quoting “Ron Vara,” a supposedly hard‑nosed Harvard‑trained economist. Reporters later discovered that Ron Vara was an anagram of Navarro’s own last name—a fictional alter‑ego Navarro slipped into six nonfiction books, policy memos, and media appearances (Bartlett, T. October 15, 2019). When The Chronicle of Higher Education exposed the fabrication, Navarro brushed it off as an “inside joke.” For Navarro making up sources may be a joke, but for the academic and scientific community that practice reflects research misconduct. This episode illustrates why you can’t rely on authority alone. Even celebrated experts can invent sources, plagiarize, or otherwise manipulate evidence. Triangulating data—cross‑checking claims, vetting methodologies, and building robust literature reviews—protects you and your readers from being misled.

This assignment equips you with the specific habits that make triangulation possible:

Skill you’ll practice	Why it protects you (and your readers)
Pinpoint the research question	Clarifies what a study really promises so you can test whether the data and conclusions match the claim.
Interrogate the literature review	Reveals whether authors have mapped the full conversation or cherry‑picked sources (Navarro-style) to prop up a predetermined stance.
Analyze citation patterns	Shows whose voices are amplified or ignored, helping you spot bias, gaps, or fabricated authorities.

Because professional & technical communication draws on multiple methodological communities, knowledge workers need an awareness of genre. An ethnographer’s narrative, a designer’s case study, and a scientist’s IMRAD report all pursue truth, but they do so with different rhetorical moves and evidence rules. Recognizing the conventions that different methodological communities lets you:

• read each study on its own terms,
• compare approaches without talking past the discipline, and
• adopt the right stance when you write for new audiences.

Master these moves and you’ll be able to separate rigorous research from rhetorical sleight of hand—Navarro’s or anyone else’s.

Definition of Terms

In order to do well on this assignment, you must have a working understanding of the following terms:

Genre Analysis

Genre Analysis is the study of how recurring types of texts—such as research articles, literature reviews, or citations—follow specific conventions shaped by the expectations of academic and professional communities. In this assignment, you’ll conduct genre analysis by closely examining how researchers in the field of professional and technical communication (PTC) frame their research questions, organize and position their literature reviews, and use citations to signal authority and engage with prior knowledge.

Rather than just identifying structural features, genre analysis helps you ask:

• What rhetorical moves do PTC researchers make to define problems and situate their work?
• How do they signal their alignment with a particular methodological community?
• What do their citation practices reveal about the scholarly conversation they’re contributing to?

By analyzing patterns across multiple published studies, you’ll begin to recognize the genre conventions that distinguish PTC research—and develop the critical literacy skills needed to join that conversation.

Research Questions, Literature Reviews, and Citation Practices

Research Questions, Literature Reviews, and Citation Practices are discourse conventions (also known as genres)–socially defined ways of communicating academic, scientific, and professional knowledge.

• Research Questions: Creatives, Designers, Interpreters, Scientists, Synthesizers (Mixed Methods Researchers), and Scholars (Textual Researchers) engage in basic and applied research by asking questions. For instance, in response to the question “why does sunrise happen?” the creative might speculate the sun reflects an ethereal life force that gave birth to humanity; the designer might develop a prototype for a planetarium to expose the sky’s hidden gears; the interpreter might speak with local Shaman, endeavoring to make sense of different creation stories.
• Literature Reviews: Investigators want to ensure that the research questions they are asking are significant and informed by the hard work of previous researchers. Beyond being driven by human inquiry, humankind’s insatiable to understand the universe, research is informed by the archive — a process anthropologists have called “the ongoing conversation of human kind.”
• Citation Practices: Citation is more than a matter of giving credit—it’s a rhetorical strategy that helps writers establish credibility, situate their work within ongoing conversations, and signal their epistemological allegiances. Creatives may cite artistic influences, cultural myths, or speculative texts to inspire new ways of thinking. Designers often reference prototypes, focus group results, or UX studies to justify design choices. Scientists typically rely on peer-reviewed research and prioritize reproducibility. Textual Scholars cite seminal theorists, historical texts, or critical editions. Interpreters foreground voices from the field or draw on ethnographic sources. Mixed Methods Researchers blend citations across these traditions to reflect a pluralistic view of knowledge-making. How, when, and why researchers cite reveals their methodological community’s values and the kind of contribution they aim to make to human understanding.

Rhetorical Analysis

Rhetorical Analysis refers to the practice of analyzing a rhetorical situation. When applied to research, rhetorical analysis might involve:

1. Evaluating the Exigency: Examining the problem being investigated and questioning whether the investigators chose the most appropriate methods to analyze the problem.
2. Analyzing the Audience: Identifying who the audience is for the research and questioning whether the research question or argument addresses gaps in the literature and the current status of scholarly conversations on the topic. This involves identifying how the study interacts with canonical texts within the discipline or questioning how the study responds to current discussions and perspectives on the topic.
3. Assessing the Researchers: Determining whether the researchers have the qualifications and expertise necessary to conduct the study. This includes checking for ethical lapses and conflicts of interest. For example, if an investigator is researching tobacco and they work for a cigarette company, you would be wise to question the veracity of their review of literature, methods, claims, and results.
4. Analyzing the Journal: Recognizing that not all journals or publishing companies are equal, and understanding the reputation and rigor of the journal where the research is published.

Consumers of research need to assess the ethos of the investigators to determine whether a study is worth reading. They want to check for bias and conflicts of interest. Subject matter experts want to determine whether the investigators are citing the canonical texts on a subject, and whether the investigators are misrepresenting previously published works and the current status of the scholarly conversation on the topic. Seasoned investigators understand they need to adopt the rhetorical stance expected by the methodological community they are addressing. For instance, before writing a proposal, they want to study past proposals that were funded by the funding agency or business.

Literature

In the context of the research community, the term “literature” refers to the body of published, peer-reviewed work that is relevant to a particular field of study or research topic. This includes:

• Journal articles
• Conference proceedings
• Books and monographs
• Dissertations and theses
• Reports and white papers
• Other formal academic publications

Literature Review

A literature review is a systematic survey and synthesis of existing peer-reviewed works related to a specific research topic or question. It serves multiple purposes and can be understood in two primary contexts:

1. As a Genre of Discourse: A literature review is a distinct genre of discourse that focuses on synthesizing and critically analyzing the existing body of scholarly work on a particular topic. As a genre, it has its own conventions, rhetorical appeals, and expectations that distinguish it from other forms of research genres, such as empirical research articles or theoretical papers.
2. As a Section within a Research Study: Within the structure of a research study or paper, the literature review typically represents a dedicated section or chapter. It provides an overview and analysis of the relevant literature, contextualizing the current study, identifying gaps or areas that require further investigation, and establishing the rationale and significance of the research being undertaken.

Methodological Community – Research Community

Research communities — such as scholars, creatives, or empiricists — develop different ways of conducting research because they face different problems and goals — and because they hold different epistemological assumptions about what knowledge is and how to test the authority of knowledge claims. As a result, different methodological communities have unique and disparate ways of framing research questions, literature reviews, and citations. The body of their works — their research genres — are different from one another. They have distinct voices, personas, perspectives, and point of views. For instance, scientists avoid the first person and subjective impressions as they embrace the tenets of positivism and engage in objective experiments. In contrast, scholars are more likely to use first-person and subjectivite arguments as they embrace hermeneutics and dialogism and debate canonical texts and scholarly conversations. However, scholars and researchers across methodological communities also share ethical practices, information literacy perspectives, rhetorical appeals, and discourse conventions. (More)

Introduction to the First Deliverable

Your goal in this assignment is to engage in rhetorical analysis, genre analysis, and citation analysis, which are textual research methods, to analyze the research questions, literature reviews, and citation practices of researchers in the PTC field.

Draft three concise research notes—one per article—on studies published in the last year in professional and technical communication journals. For each note, you will:

• Track the research question: Show how the authors introduce it and carry it through each section (e.g., introduction, methods, results, conclusion).
• Map the literature review: Explain how the study is situated within previous work.
• Examine citation practices: Describe how the authors integrate and credit their sources. When, Why, and How do the authors summarize, paraphrase, or quote sources?

Hold off on critiquing methodology; that’s the focus of the next creative challenge.

Recommended Steps for a “Critical Reading” of a Research Study

For this assignment, you will use rhetorical analysis, genre analysis, and citation analysis, which are textual research methods, to analyze the research questions, literature reviews, and citation practices of researchers in the PTC field.

1. Begin the assignment by choosing three peer-reviewed, research studies published in a PTC (professional and technical communication journal).  
2. Read the following articles:
   • Research Questions – How Scholars, Empiricists, Creatives & Designers Frame Inquiry
   • Literature Reviews – How Scholars, Empiricists, Creatives & Designers Frame Scholarly Conversations
3. Engage in rhetorical analysis:
   • Who publishes the articles? Is the journal published by a professional organization, university, think tank?
   • Which methodological communities are represented in the articles the journal has recently published:
     • Creatives, Designers, Interpreters (Qualitative Researchers), Scientists (Quantitative Empiricists), Synthesizers (Mixed Methods Researchers), Scholars (Textual Researchers).
   • Analyze the rhetorical situation for each article, questioning the exigency, the problem(s) the researchers are investigating.
4. Engage in genre analysis, studying the discourse, organizational structure, and rhetorical moves the researchers make in each of the three studies you have selected to review.
   • Do researchers use the first person?
   • When you analyze the articles and journal from a methodological lens, do you notice any differences in how different research communities frame research questions, literature reviews, and citations?
5. Engage in citation analysis.
   • Analyze whom the researchers cite: Websites? news magazines? peer-reviewed studies? primary sources? secondary sources? qualitative research? Quantitative research?
   • Evaluate how the researchers introduce sources inside their texts to advance their ethos, argument, results, and conclusions.

Required Template

The deliverables for this stage of your work are three sets of research notes, one set for each study, and three tables for each note. Follow this template for your notes:

1. Your Name
2. APA 7 citation for the article being reviewed
   • (Do one article at a time; upload to Canvas as separate documents and provide links to your works as specified on the course sandbox.)
3. Identification of the primary research method the study employed and the Methodological Community the research targets. (20 words max)
4. Total Word Count for your research note ( > 800 words)
   
   [Line Break]
   
5. Rhetorical Analysis Narrative (100 to 200 words). In a 200 word analysis, report on the rhetorical situation for the study. Your analysis should include:
   • Exigency: Evaluate the problem being investigated. What is the primary research question?
   • Audience: Analyze who the audience is for the research. Question whether the research question or argument addresses gaps in the literature and the current status of scholarly conversations on the topic. Identify how the study interacts with canonical texts within the discipline and responds to current discussions and perspectives.
   • Researchers: Assess who the researchers are. Question their ethos. For example, determine whether they have the qualifications and expertise necessary to conduct the study. Check for ethical lapses and conflicts of interest.
   • Journal: Analyze the journal in which the study is published. Is it endorsed by a professional community or university? Evaluate the reputation and rigor of the journal or publishing company
6. Rhetorical Analysis Quantitative Table. Summarize your results in a table. Use these column headers: (1) APA 7 Author Citation; (2) Methodological Community; (3) Exigency; (4) Audience; (5) Researcher Bios Info
7. Research Question Analysis Narrative (100 to 200 words)
   • For each study, provide a 100-to-200 word analysis of the investigator’s research question. Pay particular attention to where and how the research question/argument was introduced. Note whether the research question/argument was repeated throughout the study or limited to certain sections of the study. If no research question is provided, identify and discuss the main argument.
     • Analyze whether the phrasing of the researcher’s question suggests they are writing for the Creatives, Designers, Interpreters (Qualitative Researchers), Scientists (Quantitative Empiricists), Synthesizers (Mixed Methods Researchers), Scholars (Textual Researchers)
8. Research Question Quantitative Table
   • For each study create a table to visually summarize the key findings, such as:
     • List the research question or argument
     • List the number of times the research question was mentioned in the study (e.g., does it appear in an abstract, introduction–and so on
9. Literature Review Analysis Narrative. In approximately 250 words, report on the literature review for the study. Your analysis should address the following functions and consider the differences in how methodological communities use literature reviews:
   1. Context and Background: Discuss how the literature review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in the field.
   2. Identifying Gaps: Identify gaps in current knowledge that the literature review highlights.
   3. Theoretical Framework: Analyze how the literature review helps in developing or refining the theoretical framework for the study.
   4. Methodology Insight: Discuss any insights into effective methodologies and potential pitfalls that the literature review provides.
   5. Justification: Explain how the literature review justifies the need for the current study.
   6. Critical Evaluation: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the existing research discussed in the literature review.
   7. Synthesis: Describe how the literature review synthesizes information from multiple sources to create a coherent narrative about the state of the field.
   8. Placement in Study: Note where the literature review is presented in the research study and discuss how this placement aligns with the methodological community (e.g., as a separate section in quantitative studies, integrated throughout in qualitative studies, or both in mixed methods studies).
10. Literature Review Quantitative Table
    • For each study, use the nine criteria outlined above to summarize key results
11. Citation Analysis Narrative. In approximately 200 words, discuss how the researchers use citations
    1. to establish a gap in the literature, support the significance of their research question, substantiate the internal and external validity of their methods, and substantiate their interpretations of the findings
    2. to establish the Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose of their sources
    3. to illustrate they are conversant with scholarly conversations about the exigency they are investigating
    4. to illustrate they are conversant with the citation conventions their target audience (Creatives, Designers, Interpreters, Scientists, Synthesizers, and Scholars ) expect them to follow
12. Citation Analysis Quantitative Table
    • For each study, create a data visualization to summarize key findings.
13. Metacognitive Footnote.  If you do use AI to complete this assignment, you are required to write and submit with the assignment an extended “metacognitive footnote” (e.g., 250 words) that reports on how you used AI, such as
    1. Thought Partner. 
       • Engaging with AI tools in a dialogic manner to discuss, critique, and synthesize ideas, including intellectual strategies such as rhetorical reasoning, genre analysis, critical information literacy practices, counterarguments, and methodological critique.
    2. Research Assistant. 
       • Using AI tools to engage in strategic searching, identify canonical texts, visualize relationships among sources, and develop gaps in knowledge.
    3. Composing Assistant. 
       • Using AI tools to facilitate intellectual processes associated with writing (e.g.,  prewriting, inventing, drafting, collaborating, researching, planning, organizing, designing, rereading, revising, editing).
    4. Citation Assistant.
       • Using bibliography tools to manage citations.
    5. Publishing and Remediation Assistant.  
       • Using AI tools for SEO purposes or for remediating texts in different media (e.g, text to speech; text to image; text to video).
    6. Designer.
       • Using AI tools for creating visual elements (e.g., photographs, tables, figures, illustrations). 
    7. Editorial Assistant.
       • Using AI tools to conform to standard written English
    8. Teaching Assistant. 
       • Using AI tools to teach oneself about the genre of the dissertation, information-literacy standards of the STEM community, scholarly conventions for citing sources, writing and rhetorical processes, or the stylistic conventions of the scientific community.

Deliverable #2 – Reflection

Working individually, write a 250 to 500 word reflection that reports on

• what you learned about the topics that interest readers of the journal you analyzed
• the types of articles in published in the journal you reviewed
• your sense, based on a review of the past year of studies published by the journal, the methods that seem to be most valued in PTC
• what you learned about how investigators from diverse methodological communities shape their research questions, literature reviews, and citations

Evaluation Criteria

Responsiveness to the Assignment Prompt

Rhetorical Analysis Narrative ( 200 words)

• Did the critic identify the authors of the article and address their qualifications?
• Did the critic address the priorities, questions, or intellectual traditions of the research community they are addressing? 
• Did the critic address how the study aligns with the conventions, discourse, and expectations of the methodological community it targets?
• Did the critic assess whether the research contributes to ongoing conversations within this methodological community or responds to gaps in their knowledge or practice?

Journal and Publisher:

• Did the critic identify the journal and the organization or publisher behind it?
• Did the critic assess the reputation of the journal and its publisher within the relevant methodological community?
• Did the critic analyze how the journal’s mission or scope aligns with the research study and its targeted methodological community? For instance, in your review of articles published by the journal, do you see they are chiefly interested in theoretical scholarly pieces or empirical pieces? Qualitative or quantitative research?

Research Question Analysis

• Did the critic identify and clearly articulate the research question or main argument in the study?
• Did the critic evaluate where and how the research question or argument was introduced (e.g., abstract, introduction, discussion)? In other words, id they explain whether the research question was repeated throughout the study or limited to specific sections?
• Did the critic analyze how the framing of the research question reflects the conventions and epistemological position of its targeted methodological community?
• Did the critic evaluate whether the research question aligns with the expectations and priorities of the targeted methodological community?
  (E.g., Is the question designed to advance theory, test hypotheses, explore lived experiences, solve practical problems, or combine these approaches?)
• If no explicit research question is provided, did the critic identify the main argument and assess how well it aligns with the targeted methodological community’s conventions and goals?

Literature Review Analysis 

• Did the critic discuss how the literature review provides context and background for understanding the current state of knowledge in the field?
• Did the critic evaluate whether the literature review identifies specific gaps in knowledge that the study aims to address?
• Did the critic assess how the literature review engages with key scholarly conventions and canonical texts within the field?
  • (E.g., Does it build on foundational works or critique established ideas central to Scholars/Textual Researchers, or does it integrate empirical findings for Quantitative or Qualitative Researchers?)
• Did the critic evaluate whether the literature review effectively situates the study within ongoing disciplinary conversations, debates, or controversies?
• Did the critic discuss how the literature review justifies the need for the current study by showing its relevance to existing scholarly conversations?
• Did the critic analyze how the literature review synthesizes information from multiple sources to create a coherent narrative about the state of the field?
• Did the critic assess whether the placement of the literature review aligns with the conventions of the targeted methodological community?

Citation Analysis

• Did the critic evaluate whether the study’s references serve as a form of social capital by engaging with thought leaders or influential works?Submission Guidelines

Acknowledgment and Authority:

• Did the critic evaluate whether the researchers appropriately acknowledged the original authors or creators of ideas? In other words, did they address canonical texts , or recent findings within the targeted methodological community?

Conceptual Bridges:

• Did the critic analyze how the citations create conceptual bridges by situating the study within a historical or intellectual tradition? In other words, did they trace the evolution of ideas over time to highlight continuity or shifts in scholarly conversations?
• Alignment with Scholarly Conventions:
• Did the critic note whether the citation conventions reflect the expectations of the study’s methodological community?

Diversity and Depth:

• Did the critic evaluate whether the study draws from a diverse range of sources, including seminal works, contemporary studies, and interdisciplinary perspectives? In other words, did the critic consider whether the citations engage with the major debates and canonical texts of the field, showcasing depth and breadth?

Placement and Purpose:

• Did the critic assess whether the placement of citations enhances the coherence and persuasiveness of the argument?

Rhetorical and Dialogic Function:

• Did the critic discuss how citations act as rhetorical tools, lending credibility, authority, and professionalism to the study?
• Did the critic analyze how citations invite readers into the broader scholarly dialogue, allowing them to trace the intellectual lineage and impact of ideas?

Ethos and Social Capital:

• Did the critic consider how the study’s citations position the researchers within the field’s intellectual hierarchy or contribute to their professional ethos?

FAQs

Related Resources

• Citation Guide – Learn How to Cite Sources in Academic and Professional Writing
• Literature Reviews – How Scholars, Empiricists, Creatives & Designers Frame Scholarly Conversations
• Research Questions – How Scholars, Empiricists, Creatives & Designers Frame Research Questions
• Scholarship as a Conversation