Academic Essays
This section includes two academic essays: one seminar paper on a research topic in rhetoric and one literature review essay. These essays demonstrate my ability to conduct extensive, cross-disciplinary research and synthesize complex theoretical frameworks into cohesive academic arguments.
Seminar Paper
The following paper, “The Rhetoric of Eating Corpses: Vegan Discourse and the Subversion of Animal Product Euphemisms,” was the final product for RHET 5383: History and Theory of Rhetoric. I felt very passionately about this topic, and of all my portfolio samples, I feel the most proud of this work.
Dr. Leake assigned this project to challenge us to apply classical and modern rhetorical theory to a topic of our choosing. I found this work deeply compelling, not only because it addresses an issue I care about deeply, but also because it allowed me to explore how language functions as a barrier between our actions and our ethics, specifically regarding the “meat paradox,” or the psychological conflict between caring about animals and eating them.
The rhetorical inspiration for this paper was rooted in my interest in how the words we use shape our perception of right versus wrong, and of reality as a whole. I noticed that in mainstream discourse, the language used for animal products (“beef,” “pork,” “leather”) serves as a euphemistic shield that psychologically distances the consumer from the living being. I wanted to analyze how vegan activists on YouTube use a “subversive naming” strategy to strip away these shields, replacing comfortable euphemisms with visceral descriptions like “corpse” or “murder” to force a shift in the audience’s perspective.
I grounded my work in several key theoretical pillars: Kenneth Burke’s Terministic Screens, Lloyd Bitzer’s Rhetorical Situation, George Lakoff’s Conceptual Metaphors, and David Casagrande’s Theory of Abstractification.
- Burke’s Terministic Screens: I used this to explain how “carnist” euphemisms act to create an alternative perceptual reality in which cognitive dissonance is resolved by directing attention toward the product but away from the animal.
- Bitzer’s Rhetorical Situation: I applied this to identify the rhetorical exigence that exists due to the ethical inconsistency of animal consumption and the moral dissonance people feel when confronting the suffering of their “food” animals.
- Casagrande’s Abstractification: I used this to analyze how language is used to turn individual animals into abstractions, and how that commodification makes the reality of animal exploitation more palatable.
- Lakoff’s Metaphors: I applied this to show how our the powerful metaphor of “ANIMALS ARE FOOD” maps animals conceptually as morally neutral resources rather than morally significant living individuals.
- Methodology: I conducted a qualitative analysis of debates with vegan YouTubers, coding for specific instances where activists deploy harsh terms to collapse the conceptual distance created by the euphemisms.
The final version of this paper evolved substantially from its inception. Initially, I wanted to write on the rhetorical and ethical effects of animal euphemisms in general. I soon realized my scope was too broad and lacked a manageable site of inquiry. I narrowed the scope to focus specifically on two popular vegan activist YouTubers’ catachrestic use of euphemism-replacement in debates with “carnists.” As my research progressed, I expanded the theoretical frameworks on which I based my analysis and conclusion.
While this paper was situated outside of the usual topics of technical communication, the process of researching and writing it taught me something important that transcends disciplines and is pertinent to our field—the words we use shape the way people see the world. That is a profound responsibility, and it must be honored in our practice.
Literature Review Essay
I produced the following literature review, “Information Architecture in Technical Communication,” for ENG 5311: Foundations of Technical Communication with Dr. Williams. I wrote this during my second full semester in the MATC program, just as I was realizing that technical communication is a much broader field than I had originally imagined. Coming from a professional background as a technical writer, I wanted to use this assignment to draw connections between my work in knowledge management and the academic theories I was learning.
I chose to research the question “Why is Information Architecture important in the field of Technical Communication?” because, despite everything I was learning about how to produce effective communications and documents, I saw little about how to organize that information for usability and ease of retrieval. I wondered why I was not seeing more about how we manage the 2.5 quintillion bytes of data produced every day, and I wanted to understand the structures that make technical communication artifacts usable.
Researching Information Architecture (IA) felt like a natural extension of my interest in documentation and knowledge management. I wanted to look beyond even simple data storage and explore IA as a rhetorical act. I wanted to understand how our categorization and labeling of information dictates how a user perceives and interacts with our documents. And I wanted to know what technical communication scholarship had to say about it.
Sadly, I found a dearth of recent scholarship on IA within our field. This impacted the style and methodology of this review, as I needed to synthesize a wide range of scholarly perspectives into a cohesive story about how IA pertains to technical communication. Two important voices emerged from my research to ground my analysis:
- William Hart-Davidson’s view of IA as a “complementary path” to practicing technical communication.
- Janice Redish’s foundational work on information design.
By structuring the review to move from basic definitions to its intersection with UX design and content strategy, I was able to build a map of the field’s current landscape. I hope that, in time, the landscape grows, as more scholars see the importance of IA in technical communication.
In completing this project, I expanded my research skills beyond what was asked of me as an undergraduate and immersed myself in the scholarship of our field. It was the first time I could see that I was not only part of a “field,” but that I was permitted to interrogate its body of work. I also learned to use an annotated bibliography to produce a literature review, a genre which was completely new to me. The work you find below evidences my growth as not just a technical communicator, but a scholar.