The final version of this paper is due on Sunday of unit eight. I would appeal to your better nature and ask you to try to turn it in earlier than that though. The final draft is worth 260 points and is a major component of the portfolio.

For this paper, you should explore an organization’s communication in a crisis or change situation. Begin with an organizational crisis or change situation—school shootings, chemical or oil spill, bankruptcy, change in CEO, etc. Here are some examples of papers you might do:

• study the metaphors the President uses when he speaks on a major crisis like the BP oil spill
• study the corporate response to a company’s recall of a drug or a product
• study an athlete’s (or actor’s or company’s) apology for wrong doing
• study the speeches of a new CEO

The list is really endless. Essentially, you pick some communication and analyze it using a method or theory from the lectures, text, or your own research. The topic you pick will lead you to a method of analysis. A number of possible ways of analyzing communication exist. For example, Bill Benoit at the University of Missouri discusses image restoration (how do people who have screwed up get back in good standing with their peers/publics). Coombs, Seeger, Sellnow and Ulmer often write a crisis communication.
In the paper, you should develop an effective argument about the implications of a communicative act. Avoid making obvious claims–show your reader something important that they didn’t already know.
Follow the format outlined in the handouts and our discussions. The information below should serve as a guide.

This paper should be at least 10 complete pages long– on to the eleventh page is better. It should be typed in a 10-12 character-per-inch font, double spaced with one-inch margins. As a paper, it should have an introduction which sets up the paper and a conclusion that reviews your main ideas. Use section headings, transitions between sections, and previews and reviews in each section. You must use at least eight sources in the paper. Remember to use APA style. Spell-check and grammar-check is recommended. Papers with many errors hurt your credibility and your ability to communicate.

Realize that we are writing the paper in stages. You will write three papers and combine them into this one final paper, so 1) don’t panic and 2) don’t forget to go back to the drafts and edit the paper to make it flow.

Guidelines

• Introduction
  1. Attention getter.
  2. Identify the communication you will be studying.
  3. Explain why it’s important to look at this event.
  4. Preview the sections of the paper.
• Background
  1. Give background on when, where, and to whom the communication was delivered.
  2. Describe the communication—summarize its main points.
  3. Discuss the crisis or event that made the communication necessary.
  4. Explain the circumstances surrounding the act/communication.
  5. Explain the barriers/expectations the piece faces.
  6. Describe the speaker,
  7. Summarize at least three articles about the communication/speaker.
  8. Explain in more detail why the text/communication is interesting (expand on your introduction).
  9. State your thesis or main argument about how we should see the communication.
• Theory/Methodology
  1. Explain your theoretical perspective.
  2. Summarize at least three other studies done with your method.
  3. Explanation of why this method works with the communication you are exploring
  4. Explain what standards are used for evaluation? Effects? Truth? Ethics? Artistry?
• Analysis/Evaluation
  1. Identify your thesis. Phrase it as how, using your methodology as a lens, we now “see” your artifact/communication.
  2. Develop at least three arguments which support the thesis/research question.
  3. Give at least three examples (often quotes from the artifact) to support each of the arguments.
  4. Using criteria established in your theory section, what can we learn about this piece? This speaker? These strategies? The consequences of using these strategies?
  5. What conclusion or assumptions about the rhetor or the artifact can be made?
• Conclusion
  1. What is the general argument of your study?
  2. What has this study contributed to the study of organizational communication?
  3. What are some possible areas for future study?
  4. What should the reader take away from this work?