how to write a rogerian argument thesis

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, tips and techniques for crafting compelling narrative essays.

Tips for Writing a Thesis Statement for a Rogerian Argument

• Shelia Odak
• Categories : Help with writing assignments paragraphs, essays, outlines & more
• Tags : Homework help & study guides

Definition of a Thesis Statement

A thesis statement is the main idea of your essay. It is the paper’s controlling argument. It is important that your thesis is a focused, single idea. A thesis asserts your point of view regarding the subject of the essay. Writing a thesis statement for a Rogerian argument essay uses this same idea while incorporating the specific idiosyncrasies that create this type of paper.

Definition of a Rogerian Argument

The psychologist Carl R. Rogers advocated communication based on compromise, an approach he wrote about in his 1961 book On Becoming a Person . Rogers felt a person should suspend judgment on a topic until he or she had listened to the adversarial point of view. Once this happened, a person would be capable of coming to a well-rounded conclusion that would take into account this alternative perspective. A Rogerian argument takes this idea and applies it to the essay format. A Rogerian essay structure acknowledges that a subject can be looked at from different standpoints.

Positioning the Main Idea

In most traditional essays, the thesis statement is given first, often in the introductory paragraph, and does not take into consideration opposing views. What makes a Rogerian thesis different from a regular thesis is that it presented only after the writer has conceded that opposite viewpoints exist and that they have some merit. This concession of merit may even lead into your thesis statement, as in this example from a Seton Hill professor: “Regardless of whether the fetus is entitled to legal protection, society as a whole will benefit if we treat a high abortion rate as symptomatic of a greater social illness. Identifying and addressing that illness will do more practical good than endlessly pitting the rights of a woman against the rights of her fetus."

The Rogerian structure includes the following parts: An introduction that gives a fair assessment of the opposition; a section detailing the viewpoints of the opposition and stating where you see merit in their views; the thesis statement that shows how you have taken the opposition into account but have still developed your own perspective; a section of support for your thesis that illustrates why it is valid; and a conclusion that illustrates why your position is beneficial to those on both sides of the argument.

Getting the Tone Right

It is important that the Rogerian thesis be delivered in neutral, non-adversarial language. The thesis should not be an attack on the opposition. It should present the writer’s viewpoint without dismissing or demeaning the viewpoints of others. For example, in a thesis that advocated the death penalty, you would not want to refer to those on the other side of the issue as “bleeding-heart liberals.”

In addition, the thesis has to be supportable. It is easier to persuade a reader of your point of view if you are able to offer support through research. Saying that “anyone who takes a life should pay with his life” is an impassioned statement, which is all wrong for a Rogerian argument, and it is not supportable through research. Show the reader why your way of seeing the issue is valid in certain circumstances.

Why It Works

For some subjects, especially controversial and divisive ones, people have strong viewpoints. In order to get an adversary to listen to an opposing idea, it is important to treat him or her with respect. This means being willing to see worth in that conflicting viewpoint. Successfully writing a thesis statement for a Rogerian argument means correct placement of the main idea in the body of the essay and writing the thesis in dispassionate language. Doing this creates the type of communication Carl R. Rogers advocated.

• Rogers, Carl R. On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy . Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961.
• Glenn, Cheryl, et al. The Writer’s Harbrace Handbook . 2nd ed. Boston: Heinle, 2004.
• Building an Argument (Dennis G. Jerz, Seton Hill University) ( http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/argument/building.html )

This post is part of the series: Writing a Rogerian Essay

Need to write a Rogerian essay but have no idea what the term means? This series defines a Rogerian argument, explains its structure, and tells how to create a successful Rogerian thesis.

• Essay Structure for a Rogerian Argument
• Writing a Successful Thesis Statement for a Rogerian Argument

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.

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.

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)

• 50 Argumentative Essay Topics
• Common Ground in Rhetoric
• 5 Steps to Writing a Position Paper
• Tips on How to Write an Argumentative Essay
• Argument (Rhetoric and Composition)
• Preparing an Argument Essay: Exploring Both Sides of an Issue
• Usage and Examples of a Rebuttal
• LSAT Writing: What You Need to Know
• How to Write a Persuasive Essay
• Definition and Examples of an Ad Hominem Fallacy
• What Does Argumentation Mean?
• Writing an Opinion Essay
• presence (rhetoric)
• Premise Definition and Examples in Arguments
• Persuasion and Rhetorical Definition

EnglishComposition.Org

Be a Better Writer

Rogerian Argument: Explanation and Example

When most of us think of arguments, we think about winners and losers. And we think that the winners win because their arguments were strong and forceful. This common perception of argument aligns well with what is called an Aristotelian or classical argument:  “ This is my assertion and here is the compelling evidence that shows why I am right ." 

But that kind of argument doesn't work in all situations. When your audience is a difficult one in the sense that you know your audience isn’t going to completely agree with your side of the issue, it can be a good idea to search for a middle ground. A Rogerian argument helps you find that middle ground.

Based on the work of psychologist Carl Rogers, a Rogerian argument can be extremely persuasive and can help you, as a writer, understand your own biases and how you might work to solve problems by finding common ground with others. Here is a overview of the basic strategy for writing a Rogerian argument, followed by a Rogerian essay example:

10 Steps to Writing a Rogerian Argument

• Find common ground  — Because a Rogerian argument will help you find common ground with your audience, you should consider this style of argument when you have a difficult or controversial topic and want to use a connection with your audience as a part of your persuasive style. But what is common ground? Finding a common ground involves meeting your opposition in the middle.
• Know your audience  — Is your audience going to be reluctant to change on this issue? If so, a Rogerian argument can be persuasive. It is also going to be a wonderful exercise in helping you see things from your audience’s perspective, as your goal is to understand the other side of an issue and then meet your audience in the middle. Some brainstorming can help you as you think about how you are going to approach your audience and find the common ground you need.
• Introduce the problem  — When you begin your argumentative essay, you should introduce the problem or issue in a way that makes it clear to an opposing audience that you understand their position.
• Acknowledge other side  — Unlike some other argument structures, in a Rogerian argument, you should address the opposition in the very beginning of your essay. After your introduction, you should explain the contexts in which your opposition’s viewpoints make sense and are valid.
• State your position  — It’s now time to present your side. Your goal is to evenly and carefully make the case for your position in order to be as persuasive as possible to the other side. Explain the contexts in which your side of the issue makes sense.
• Bring two sides together  — After you present your position, your next step is to explain how the opposition would benefit from considering at least certain parts of your position. Focus on the value of your position while remembering the value of the other side.
• Reach a conclusion  — As you reach the end of your Rogerian essay, remember to remind your audience of your main points and try to leave your audience with something to consider, even if they are still not convinced by the balanced presentation on the issue you have presented.
• Not finished yet  — You now have your draft completed, but there is a world of work left to do in terms of revision and editing. Before you edit, you should revise the content of your work. To help with revision, it is a good idea to get feedback.
• Hear from the other side  — Get feedback from as many people as you can. It is helpful to participate in a peer review if your course offers one. But it is a good idea to go beyond that peer review as well. Try to get feedback from those who disagree with your position. Not everyone is going to agree with your argument, but the feedback helps you grow as a writer.
• Edit and polish  — Once your essay content has been revised, it is time to edit. Editing involves addressing things like grammar, spelling, and checking on your citation. A good editing process involves many passes. You can’t catch all of your errors in one pass. Remember that effective editing takes time!

Follow these steps and you will be well on your way to a strong Rogerian argument essay!

Rogerian Argument Example Essay

Now that you have had the chance to learn about Rogerian arguments, it’s time to see what a Rogerian argument might look like. Below, you’ll see a sample argumentative essay, written according to APA formatting guidelines, with a particular emphasis on Rogerian elements.

Click the image below to see the sample paper in a PDF format. Scroll over the purple dialog boxes to learn about the strategies and techniques the author used in this essay. In some browsers, you may need to download or save this file to be able to utilize all of its functionality.

Click here to see a sample Rogerian Essay

License and Attribution

Image Credit:  Sketch of Carl Ransom Rogers by Didius .

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

26 The Rogerian Argument

Kirsten DeVries

The Rogerian argument, inspired by the influential psychologist Carl Rogers, aims to find compromise or common ground about an issue.  If, as stated in the beginning of the chapter, academic or rhetorical argument is not merely a two-sided debate that seeks a winner and a loser, the Rogerian argument model provides a structured way to move beyond the win-lose mindset.  Indeed, the Rogerian model can be employed to deal effectively with controversial arguments that have been reduced to two opposing points of view by forcing the writer to confront opposing ideas and then work towards a common understanding with those who might disagree.

Figure 3.9 “Carl Ransom Rogers”

The following are the basic parts of a Rogerian Argument:

1.  Introduction : Introduce the issue under scrutiny in a non-confrontational way.  Be sure to outline the main sides in the debate.  Though there are always more than two sides to a debate, Rogerian arguments put two in stark opposition to one another. Crucially, be sure to indicate the overall purpose of the essay: to come to a  compromise  about the issue at hand.  If this intent is not stated up front, the reader may be confused or even suspect manipulation on the part of the writer, i.e., that the writer is massaging the audience just to win a fight.  Be advised that the Rogerian essay uses an inductive reasoning structure, so  do not  include your thesis in your introduction.  You will build toward the thesis and then include it in your conclusion.  Once again, state the  intent  to compromise, but do not yet state what the compromise is.

2.  Side A :  Carefully map out the main claim and reasoning for the  opposing side  of the argument first.  The writer’s view should never really come first because that would defeat the purpose of what Rogers called  empathetic listening , which guides the overall approach to this type of argument.  By allowing the opposing argument to come first, you communicate to the reader that you are willing to respectfully consider another’s view on the issue.  Furthermore, you invite the reader to then give you the same respect and consideration when presenting your own view.  Finally, presenting the opposition first can help those readers who would side against you to ease into the essay, keeping them invested in the project.  If you present your own ideas first, you risk polarizing those readers from the start, which would then make them less amenable to considering a compromise by the end of the essay.   You can listen to Carl Rogers himself discuss the importance of empathy on  YouTube   (https://youtu.be/2dLsgpHw5x0, transcript  here ).

3.  Side B : Carefully go over  your side  of the argument.  When mapping out this side’s claim and support, be sure that it parallels that of Side A.  In other words, make sure not to raise entirely new categories of support, or there can be no way to come to a compromise.  Make sure to maintain a non-confrontational tone; for example, avoid appearing arrogant, sarcastic, or smug.

4.  The Bridge : A solid Rogerian argument acknowledges the desires of each side and tries to accommodate both. In this part, point out the ways in which you agree or can find  common ground  between the two sides.  There should be at least one point of agreement.  This can be an acknowledgement of the one part of the opposition’s agreement that you also support or an admittance to a shared set of values even if the two sides come to different ideas when employing those values.  This phase of the essay is crucial for two reasons: finding common ground (1) shows the audience the two views are not necessarily at complete odds, that they share more than they seem, and (2) sets up the compromise to come, making it easier to digest for all parties. Thus, this section  builds a bridge  from the two initial isolated and opposite views to a compromise that both sides can reasonably support.

5.  The Compromise :  Now is the time to finally announce your compromise, which is your thesis.  The compromise is what the essay has been building towards all along, so explain it carefully and demonstrate the logic of it. For example, if debating about whether to use racial profiling, a compromise might be based on both sides’ desire for a safer society.  That shared value can then lead to a new claim, one that disarms the original dispute or set of disputes.  For the racial profiling example, perhaps a better solution would focus on more objective measures than race that would then promote safety in a less problematic way.

Figure 3.10 “Rogerian Argument”

Sample Writing Assignment 5

Find a controversial topic, and begin building a Rogerian argument.  Write up your responses to the following:

• The topic or dilemma I will write about is…
• My opposing audience is…
• My audience’s view on the topic is…
• My view on the topic is…
• Our common ground–shared values or something that we both already agree on about the topic–is…
• My compromise (the main claim or potential thesis) is…

Let's Get Writing! Copyright © 2018 by Kirsten DeVries is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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

61 Rogerian Argument Model

Rogerian argument.

The Rogerian argument, inspired by the influential psychologist Carl Rogers, aims to find compromise or common ground about an issue.  If, as stated in the beginning of the chapter, academic or rhetorical argument is not merely a two-sided debate that seeks a winner and a loser, the Rogerian argument model provides a structured way to move beyond the win-lose mindset.  Indeed, the Rogerian model can be employed to deal effectively with controversial arguments that have been reduced to two opposing points of view by forcing the writer to confront opposing ideas and then work towards a common understanding with those who might disagree.

The following are the basic parts of a Rogerian Argument:

1.  Introduction : Introduce the issue under scrutiny in a non-confrontational way.  Be sure to outline the main sides in the debate.  Though there are always more than two sides to a debate, Rogerian arguments put two in stark opposition to one another. Crucially, be sure to indicate the overall purpose of the essay: to come to a  compromise  about the issue at hand.  If this intent is not stated up front, the reader may be confused or even suspect manipulation on the part of the writer, i.e., that the writer is massaging the audience just to win a fight.  Be advised that the Rogerian essay uses an inductive reasoning structure, so  do not  include your thesis in your introduction.  You will build toward the thesis and then include it in your conclusion.  Once again, state the  intent  to compromise, but do not yet state what the compromise is.

2.  Side A :  Carefully map out the main claim and reasoning for the  opposing side  of the argument first.  The writer’s view should never really come first because that would defeat the purpose of what Rogers called  empathetic listening , which guides the overall approach to this type of argument.  By allowing the opposing argument to come first, you communicate to the reader that you are willing to respectfully consider another’s view on the issue.  Furthermore, you invite the reader to then give you the same respect and consideration when presenting your own view.  Finally, presenting the opposition first can help those readers who would side against you to ease into the essay, keeping them invested in the project.  If you present your own ideas first, you risk polarizing those readers from the start, which would then make them less amenable to considering a compromise by the end of the essay.   You can listen to Carl Rogers himself discuss the importance of empathy on  YouTube   (https://youtu.be/2dLsgpHw5x0, transcript  here ).

3.  Side B : Carefully go over  your side  of the argument.  When mapping out this side’s claim and support, be sure that it parallels that of Side A.  In other words, make sure not to raise entirely new categories of support, or there can be no way to come to a compromise.  Make sure to maintain a non-confrontational tone; for example, avoid appearing arrogant, sarcastic, or smug.

4.  The Bridge : A solid Rogerian argument acknowledges the desires of each side and tries to accommodate both. In this part, point out the ways in which you agree or can find  common ground  between the two sides.  There should be at least one point of agreement.  This can be an acknowledgement of the one part of the opposition’s agreement that you also support or an admittance to a shared set of values even if the two sides come to different ideas when employing those values.  This phase of the essay is crucial for two reasons: finding common ground (1) shows the audience the two views are not necessarily at complete odds, that they share more than they seem, and (2) sets up the compromise to come, making it easier to digest for all parties. Thus, this section  builds a bridge  from the two initial isolated and opposite views to a compromise that both sides can reasonably support.

5.  The Compromise :  Now is the time to finally announce your compromise, which is your thesis.  The compromise is what the essay has been building towards all along, so explain it carefully and demonstrate the logic of it. For example, if debating about whether to use racial profiling, a compromise might be based on both sides’ desire for a safer society.  That shared value can then lead to a new claim, one that disarms the original dispute or set of disputes.  For the racial profiling example, perhaps a better solution would focus on more objective measures than race that would then promote safety in a less problematic way.

Rogerian Execise

Find a controversial topic, and begin building a Rogerian argument.  Write up your responses to the following:

• The topic or dilemma I will write about is…
• My opposing audience is…
• My audience’s view on the topic is…
• My view on the topic is…
• Our common ground–shared values or something that we both already agree on about the topic–is…
• My compromise (the main claim or potential thesis) is…

Write What Matters Copyright © 2020 by Liza Long; Amy Minervini; and Joel Gladd is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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