Because of the recent emphasis on rhetorical context in business and technical writing (BTW) instruction, the problem-solving case has become a staple in BTW classrooms. However, a number of critics have voiced concerns about the use of the rhetorical case. These concerns recall an ancient debate among Roman rhetoricians over an early case-study method called declamation. For contemporary theorists, the debate over case study revolves around its value as a stimulant to problem-solving skills, its ability to imitate the realistic circumstances of professional BTW, and its emphasis on persona and audience along with its deemphasis of the teacher. A full spectrum of arguments on these and other issues in the case-study debate indicates that the discipline is entering a new phase in its deliberations over the role of problem-solving and pragmatics in the BTW classroom.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BonnerS. R., Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny, Methuen, London, 1977.
2.
BonnerS. R., Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and Early Empire, Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, 1949.
3.
ClarkD. L., Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education, Columbia University Press, New York, 1957.
4.
KennedyG., The Art of Persuasion in Greece, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1963.
5.
KennedyG., The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1972.
6.
KennedyG., Quintilian, Twayne Publishers, New York, 1969.
7.
SussmanL. A., The Elder Seneca, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1978.
8.
Plato, The Collected Dialogues, HamiltonE. and CairnsH. (eds.), Pantheon Books, New York, 1961.
9.
Quintilian, Institutio oratorio, ButlerH. E. (trans.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1920.
10.
Cicero, De inventione, HubbellH. M. (trans.), Loeb Classical Library, London, 1949.
11.
GraftonA. and JardineL., From Humanism to the Humanities, Duckworth, London, 1986.
12.
EhlingerD.On Rhetoric and Rhetorics, Western Speech, 31, pp. 242–249, 1967.
13.
EhlingerD.On Systems of Rhetoric, Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, pp. 131–144, Summer 1968.
14.
FogartyD., Roots for a New Rhetoric, Russell and Russell, New York, 1959.
15.
LunsfordA. A. and EdeL. S., On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric, in Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse, ConnorsR. J.EdeL. S., and LunsfordA. A. (eds.), Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 37–49, 1984.
16.
GoffmanE., Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1974.
17.
BartonB. F. and BartonM., The Case Method: Bridging the Gap between Engineering Student and Professional, in Courses, Components, and Exercises in Technical Communication, StevensonD. W. (ed.), NCTE, Urbana, pp. 22–23, 1981.
18.
FlowerL., Communication Strategy in Professional Writing: Teaching a Rhetorical Case, in Courses, Components and Exercises in Technical Communication, StevensonD. W. (ed.), NCTE, Urbana, pp. 34–46, 1981.
19.
BrockmanR. J., What is a Case?, in The Case Method in Technical Communication: Theory and Models, BrockmanR. J. (ed.), The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, n.p., pp. 1–16, 1984.
20.
YoungR. E.BeckerA. L., and PikeK. L., Rhetoric: Discovery and Change, Harcourt Brace and World, New York, 1970.
21.
CoutureB. and GoldsteinRymer J., Cases for Technical and Professional Writing, Little Brown, Boston, 1985.
22.
FieldJ. P. and WeissR. H., Cases for Composition, Little Brown, Boston, 1979.
23.
TedlockD. and JarvieP., Casebook Rhetoric: A Problem-Solving Approach to Composition, Holt; Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1981.
24.
VeitR., The Little Writing Book: Cases for Rhetorical Expression, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1982.
25.
TedlockD.The Case Approach to Composition, CCC, 32: 3, pp. 253–261, 1981.
26.
OdellL.Piaget, Problem-Solving, and Freshman Composition, CCC, 24: 1, pp. 36–42, 1973.
27.
CatronD. M.A Case for Cases, The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 47: 1, pp. 21–25, 1984.
28.
Aristotle, The Rhetoric and the Poetics, RobertsW. R. and BywaterI. (trans.), Modern Library, New York, 1952.
29.
FlowerL., Problem-Solving Strategies for Writing, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1981.
30.
PlungD. L.Writing the Persuasive Business Letter, The Journal of Business Communication, 17: 3, pp. 45–50, 1980.
31.
SimpsonM.The Pentad as Map: A Strategy for Exploring Rhetorical Cases, The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 49: 3, pp. 8–12, 1986.
32.
GieselmanR. D.Megatrends: The Future of Business Writing, Technical Writing, and Composition, The Journal of Business Communication, 58: 4, pp. 2–6, 1985.
33.
HillocksG.Jr., Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching, NCTE, Urbana, 1986.
34.
LauerJ. M., Issues in Rhetorical Invention, in Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse, ConnorsR. J.EdeL. S., and LunsfordA. A. (eds.), Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, 1984.
35.
FlowerL. and HaysJ. R.A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing, CCC, 32: 4, pp. 365–387, 1981.
36.
BartonB. F. and BartonM., Modern Technology and Technical Communication: The Impact of the Personal Computer on the Case Method, in The Case Method in Technical Communication, BrockmanR. J. (ed.), The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, n.p., pp. 71–85, 1984.
37.
ButlerM. S.A Reassessment of the Case Approach: Reinforcing Artifice in Business Writing Classes, The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 48: 2, pp. 4–7, 1985.
38.
JakobsonR., Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics, in Style and Language, SebeokT. (ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 350–377, 1960.
39.
KlaverP., Writing as Engineers and Writing in Class: Simulation as Solution and Problem, in Technical and Professional Communication: Teaching in the Two-Year College, Four-Year College, Professional School, SawyerT. M. (ed.), Professional Communication Press, Ann Arbor, pp. 155–166, 1977.
40.
HaggeJ.Presenting the Teacher-Based Case: Discourse Analysis in the Business Communication Class, The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 51: 1, pp. 5–12, 1988.
41.
KingsleyL.The Case Method as a Form of Communication, The Journal of Business Communication, 19: 2, pp. 39–50, 1982.
42.
RichardsI. A., Practical Criticism, Harcourt Brace, New York, 1929.
43.
WeeksF. W. and LockerK. O., Business Writing Cases and Problems, Stipes, Champaign, 1980.
44.
AlcornM. W.Jr. and BracherM.Literature, Psychoanalysis, and Re-Formation of the Self: A New Direction in Reader Response Theory, PMLA, 100: 3, pp. 342–354, 1985.
45.
HaysR.Case Problems Improve Technical Writing Courses and Seminars, The Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 6: 4, pp. 293–299, 1976.
46.
MooreP.The Raw and the Cooked: Using More Realistic Cases in Technical Writing Courses, JBTC (The Journal of Business and Technical Communication), 1: 2, pp. 91–97, 1987.
47.
CoutureB. and GoldsteinJ., How to Develop and Write a Case for Technical Writing, Research in Education, ED 199 724, p. 58, 1981.
48.
FlammerG.The Case Study: Exercise in Simulation, Engineering Education, 67: 5, pp. 372–373, 1977.
49.
Doheny-FarinaS.A Case Study Approach Using Conflict Among Collaborators, The Technical Writing Teacher, 15: 4, pp. 73–77, 1988.
50.
BarthesR., Writing Degree Zero, LaversA. and SmithC. (trans.), Hill and Wang, New York, 1968.
51.
FishS., Is There a Text in this Class?, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1980.
52.
AuerbachE., Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, TraskW. R. (trans.), Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1953.
53.
BernhardtS. A.Replies to Marilyn S. Butler, The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 49: 2, pp. 1–2, 1986.
54.
BowmanJ. R.Replies to Marilyn S. Butler, The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 49: 2, pp. 5–6, 1986.
55.
LittleD.The Case: Milieu and Method, The Journal of Business Communication, 8: 4, pp. 29–35, 1971.
56.
MahinL.Replies to Marilyn S. Butler, The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 49: 2, pp. 2–4, 1986.
57.
GreenM. M., How to Use Case Studies in the Classroom?, The Case Method in Technical Communication, BrockmanR. J. (ed.), The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, n.p., pp. 57–63, 1984.
58.
AycockC., Simulation and In-Class Writing: A Student Centered Approach, in Courses, Components, and Exercises in Technical Communication, StevensonD. W. (ed.), NCTE, Urbana, pp. 47–53, 1981.
59.
KardosG.Pointers on Using Engineering Cases in Class, Engineering Education, 68: 2, pp. 347–349, 1977.
60.
TowlA. R., To Study Administration by Cases, Harvard University Press, Boston, 1969.
61.
ArgyrisC., Some Limitations of the Case Method: Experiences in a Management Development Program, The Academy of Management Review, V: 2, pp. 291–298, 1980.
62.
MarrouH. I., A History of Education in Antiquity, LambG. (trans.), Sheed and World, London, 1956.
63.
FraserC. E. (ed.), The Case Method of Instruction, McGraw Hill, New York, 1973.
64.
CorbettE. P. J.The Usefulness of Classical Rhetoric, CCC, 14: 3, pp. 162–164, 1964.
65.
MendelsonM.Teaching Arrangement Inductively: Isocrates and the Business Letter, The Journal of Business Communication, 25: 2, 1988.
66.
MendelsonM.Business Prose and the Nature of the Plain Style, The Journal of Business Communication, 24: 2, 1987.
67.
MendelsonM., Teaching the Abstract as an Introduction to Technical Writing, The Technical Writing Teacher, XIV: 1, 1987.
