In this research, I employed content analysis using the constant comparative method to examine and comment on the rhetoric of public policy and its audiences of specialists and generalists in the context of participative government. I examined the specific case of the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act (CNR) by comparing technical report texts from 2004 and 2010 to reveal and contrast their specialist and generalist features. Unique attributes of the rhetoric of public policy are discussed, particularly authorship and recursion.
I organized the research findings into physical features, affective features, and cognitive features according to Carliner's framework of information design (2000). According to my findings, the CNR report from 2010 has significantly more generalist-friendly features. Generalist-friendly features at the physical level are as follows: the location of very technical information in appendices, an extensive resources section, and the heavy use of colored charts and figures. Generalist-friendly features at the affective level are: the use of emotional language in definition/naming and the use of metaphor. Generalist-friendly features at the cognitive level are: the use of metaphor and limited use of jargon. Ideology and cultural artifacts in the documents are discussed, but were determined to more likely reflect audience values and/or the political environment from which public policy rhetoric arose than specialist or generalist attributes.
|Advisor:||Perbix, Gretchen A.|
|Commitee:||Luebke, Judith, MacKenzie, Nancy|
|School:||Minnesota State University, Mankato|
|Department:||English: MA Technical Communication|
|School Location:||United States -- Minnesota|
|Source:||MAI 49/06M, Masters Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Public policy, Technical Communication, Rhetoric|
|Keywords:||Content analysis, Information design, Metaphor, Nutrition, Public policy, Rhetoric|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be