Does anyone know how to do CAs?

[AClare]

So, I have decided that it is my duty, as an industrious little forensician (I made up a word!) to learn how and write every kind of speech offered. Communication analysis is my next victim....

the thing is, no one seems to know how to do them. I have a general idea--you get a "communication model" and you evaluate a kind of communication on it, but I have no frickin' clue what a communication model looks like.

Ideally, I'd like someone to maybe show me an old CA speech and talk with me via internet/email/IM, or something....I have every IM system imaginable...AOL, Y!M, ICQ, MSN...I could get IRC if necessary...let me know.

If not possible, I'd welcome comments here. I just want one written before the season starts.

Thanks all!
Little Miss Clare

[truthisjust]

I know how to do CA's. Let me find one of my old ones and I will send it to you backchannel me at jbsmileuop@aol.com). Let me simplify the process for you. First you have to find an artifact. For the sake of explanation let's say the new TV show Monk (on USA). Then you have to develop a research question. For example, what type of tv show is Monk (comedy or crime drama) (obviously you want a more important question. Then you find some sort of model that would help answer your question. In this case some model that would explain the components of a comedy show (this is a genre critique) and then you would determine if the show meets those criteria. finally you would discuss the implications of your anaylisis. It is important to find your artifact and question before looking for a model. Now this is just a simplistic version of what to do.

This is what your outline should look like:
I. Introduction
A. Snappy intro
B. Short introduction of your artifact including a justification of why it is important to study
C. An introduction of your methodology or communication model
D. Research question (why would company X do Y, etc.)

II. Explanation of your model

III. Application of model and further explanation of your artifact.

IV. Implications
A. What does this mean to texual theory
B. What does this mean to society

V. Conclusion



Communication models can be found in every edition of every communication journal on the shelves. Some of the better ones can be found by important authors in the field. So if you are looking for something about feminism, it helps to find the primary source (the original book or article) but also it helps to see if anyone else has applied that model before (this way you get a good summary).

Justin

[Samopolis]

Mine's about U2!

[truthisjust]

well Sam I will probably judge you 10 times or so next year in CA. They think because I did the event that I enjoy judging it... oh how wrong they are.

[Samopolis]

Shit!

[AClare]

Sam:

Do you have a finished one I can look at, maybe? I think it might make the actually writing of it easier. You can email it to me: platypusrexy@cs.com

In fact, if anyone has a old finished one, I'd appreciate looking at it.

Thanks, you supportive people, you,
Clare

[truthisjust]

wahahahahahah!!!!

[Liz]

You know, you could call your coach. Just a thought.

[AClare]

Liz:

Been there, done that--Larry Galizio knows nothing about ies, least of all CAs.

Clare

[Liz]

Yeah, I know, it was a very obvious joke.
Jil's got a pretty good encyclopedia of communication models, though, speaking seriously, and I'm sure she would help if you asked.

[ML]

MMMMMmmmm.....CA's.....yummy....

Hey, here's an interesting side note; there seems to be some disagreement in the community about what the *true* aim of a CA should be.

Some people really think that you should be trying to prove something *important*, like that advertising is unfairly manipulative, or that people in highly mediated societies are numb to imagery of pain and oppression. Others vehemently reject this notion, believing one should *only* be seeking to prove adherence (or lack of) of model to artifact. In other words, some coaches/critics seem to be really into the exercise of the process, while others like to see the resulting implications emphasized and expanded.

What do people here "in the know" think?

ML

[truthisjust]

I have always thought of CA's as asking the "why." Why were people manipulated by this artificact? Instead of, "Are people manipulated by this artifact?" The adherence to the model is attempting to answer the why.

[AClare]

Liz:

You mean Jil at Portland State? You're not Liz Kinnamen (sp?) are you? If so...HI!!!!!! I didn't even realize! :D . If you do mean Jil at PSU, I should go make an appointment...that'd be really great!

Thanks,
Clare

[ML]

"I have always thought of CA's as asking the "why." Why were people manipulated by this artificact? Instead of, "Are people manipulated by this artifact?" The adherence to the model is attempting to answer the why"

Hmmm. Yeah, I guess I can see that. Then I think you would be more in the latter camp. A lot of people I've come into contact with are much more focused on "how" artifacts manipulate, than "why" and the resulting implications. "Why" gets into a lot of assumptions, whereas "how" just sort of looks at the pure mechanics of the things.

Okay, back to work.

[truthisjust]

I guess that is true as well. But I think both are true. For example, some speeches use models like corperate advocacy that attempt to determine why a company would take certain action when it seems to be against its interest and etc.

[Liz]

okay, well don't get too excited, but yeah, it's me!!! (a little excitement is always nice.) backchannel me if you need Jil's numbers...

[AClare]

Liz

I don't know how to do back channels :( every time I try to click on your personal link, IE shuts down.

Clare

[Liz]

zoiks! okay-just email me at liz_kinnaman@hotmail.com - that'll be easier.

[Prometheus]

I don't. All i can do is tell you that in our league, if you did one the first tournament, the odds are you would take home an award because so few people do them.
Kris Spellman, Prometheus

[RLayne]

Originally posted by Samopolis
Mine's about U2!


Zomg...you're an IE'er too. Is there no end to the hypocrisy? o_O :lol :evidence

[nomad]

perhaps the powers that be should update the event and call it rhetorical criticism.

[Alan]

Why did someone resurrect a THREE YEAR OLD thread?

[Hollywood Matt]

You know, I was about to write something and then, thanks to the powers of pastafarianism, the divine Mr. T intervened to prevent yet another public display of my lack of common sense.

[nomad]

Why did someone resurrect a THREE YEAR OLD thread?

sometimes you have to let something marinate for a while before you hit on the really good answer...

[WWUPhil]

I just thought that really annoying know-it-all that hadn't posted in three years had resurfaced... and then I read the whole thread and I saw that I wasn't even on there.