Rogerian Model Flowchart

Flowchart
This Rogerian Model Flowchart, as were the Classical and Toulmin models, also taken from White and Billings's The Well-Crafted Argument: A Guide and Reader, Third Edition (157).

1. What issue am I going to investigate?

2. What is my thesis?

3. What common ground exists between my views and those whose views differ from mine?

4. What are the challenging views on the matter that I need to discuss?

5. How can I judiciously highlight the limitation of the challenging views and suggest a mutually agreeable way of overcoming those limitations?

6. Based on shared views about my thesis, what can I add in the way of evidence that would be compatible with challenging views?

7. What are my concluding reflections in light of the above?

8. Using the above information, what can I say in my opening paragraph that would best introduce my argument and engage my reader's attention?

Remember:
"A successful argument along Rogerian principles like the Classical and Toulmin models, includes thorough, accurate, and relevant evidence in support of its claim; unlike these models, however, the aim of Rogerian persuasion is not to 'win' the argument but to find common ground and to build consensus on an issue troubling both the writer and the audience. Instead of being considered 'opponents,' those with differing views are encouraged to reach consensus and to enter into a cooperative dialogue with the writer. . . . When considering taking a Rogerian approach to your argument, remember to ask yourself three questions: Can I represent challenging views and evaluate the evidence fairly and objectively? Do any of the challenging views make sense to some degree, and if so, can I find a way to incorporate them into my own views? Am I sincere in my desire to establish common ground with those who take issue with me? (157).

Final checklist:
1. Do I find common ground with those whose views differ from my own?

2. Do I carefully consider the weaknesses or limitations of my point of view, as well as those of others? Do I share these with my readers?

3. Is my tone cooperative rather than confrontational?

4. Do I encourage multiple perspectives rather than a singular one toward the issue?

5. Do I treat views which I disagree respectively? Do I give more emphasis to the points of agreement than the points of disagreement?