Juxtaposition Essays—Formulate juxtapositions of ideas, concepts, arguments, contradictions,
quotes, or theoretical implications from five sets of readings during the semester. The schedule
indicates the dates by which a minimum of these juxtapositions must have been completed.
The specific requirements of this assignment in this syllabus packet, along with the grading
rubric. (5 juxtapositions at 10 points each = 50 points). You get to choose which five weeks of
the semester you will present on, but the instructor will solicit a distribution of presenters so
that every week should have at least a few presenters. The juxtapositions will be presented as
oral presentations toward the beginning of the class as a stimulus to conversation and debate.
You are expected to treat these as oral presentations; thus, clarity and persuasiveness of
presentation is taken into account. In other words, “wing it at your own risk!” [50 points]
JUXTAPOSITION EXEMPLAR & TEMPLATE
Name: Brian H. Spitzberg
E-mail: spitz@mail.sdsu.edu
COMM 610: Advanced Comm Theory
Date: 09/11/2012
Jux #1
1st Claim(s)/Concept(s):
Miller (1975) explicitly claims that the
division of rhetorical and communication
science is based on the questions asked,
and not the methods they use.
2nd Claim(s)/Concept(s):
Berger (1991) claims that a fundamental cause
of the deficit of theories in the field of
communication is the aversion to risk-taking in
theoretical predictions.
Juxtaposition(s):
Asking questions doth not a discipline make! A question may be the beginning of a theory, but
it is incapable of specifying the methodology by which it could be answered. The fundamental
feature of “science” is not that it asks questions differently from rhetoric, but that it answers
them differently.
Rhetoric may address questions of “grand theory” and empirical nature (e.g., Fisher’s claim that
some narratives are more likely to be effective [i.e., persuasive] than others, or Burke’s claim
that scape-goating can effectively energize a rhetorical audience). The difference is that science
does not hide behind historicism or ideographic presumptions regarding the generalizability of
knowledge claims. Instead, science it makes predictions that run the risk of failure and provides
a methodology for ascertaining success or failure, whereas rhetoric and humanities do not.
Such falsifiable questions may indeed take different form than those in rhetoric or the
humanities, but such a difference is meaningless unless the methods of falsification are
presumed to permit the testing of such questions with an eye toward their truth-value or
verisimilitude, which requires risk-taking.
References (if any citations from non-syllabus sources):
COMM 610 (Spring 2013): Advanced Communication Theory: p. 2
JUXTAPOSITION EXEMPLAR & TEMPLATE
Name: Brian H. Spitzberg
E-mail: spitz@mail.sdsu.edu
COMM 610: Advanced Comm Theory
Date: 09/11/2012
Jux #1
1st Claim(s)/Concept(s):
O’Boyle and Aguinis (2012) demonstrate in
several populations that outstanding
“performance outcomes are attributable to a
small group of elite performers” or superstars
(p. 106).
2nd Claim(s)/Concept(s):
Burke and Harrod (2005) compare positive and
negative partner evaluations, and find that “the
greater the discrepancy in terms of being either
over- or underevaluated, the greater the
likelihood that the person will leave the
relationship through separation or divorce” (p.
.371).
Ehrlinger et al. (2008) produce evidence that
“poor performers are overconfident in
estimates of how well they performed relative
to others because they have little insight into
the quality of their own performance,”
whereas “top performers’ mistakenly modest
relative estimates were produced by
erroneous impressions of both their own
objective performance and that of their peers”
(p. 117).
Juxtaposition(s):
Superstars are overly modest, whereas incompetents are overly optimistic, in their self-evaluation.
The overevaluations, however, work to the detriment to the incompetents, whereas the modesty
bias has little or no negative consequence for top performers and superstars. Indeed, modesty may
be part of what sustains the positive evaluations that others would have of superstars, and
unmerited narcissism or halo-bias may be part of what restricts the performance of underperformers, and help explain why most people are under-performers.
Yet, the Burke and Harrod (2005) research suggests that these under- and over-performers
all are likely to prefer partners who verify their self-perceptions. This calibration would mean that
superstars prefer partners who affirm the superstar’s more modest achievement, whereas underperformers would prefer partners who confirm the under-performer’s inflated self-evaluation. Again,
this would suggest that superstars are kept humble by their intimate relationships, whereas underperformers would function best intimately with partners who sustain the under-performer’s selfdeception, even though the effect would be to make that person less capable of performing well for
lack of an ability to accurately perceive self’s ability and other’s estimations of that ability.
The implication is a triangulated self-reinforcing tendency for superstars to get better in
social evaluations both within and without their intimate relationships, whereas the less competent
performers get increasingly stuck by failed relationships that fail in part because the incompetent
persons promote and seek confirmation for their own biased and inaccurate self-evaluations. The
possibility of this social amplification process is not recognized by O’Boyle and Aguinis (2012) or
Ehrlinger et al. (2008), illustrating the importance of theorizing beyond the individual or dyadic unit
of analysis.
References (if any citations from non-syllabus sources):
COMM 610 (Spring 2013): Advanced Communication Theory: p. 3
REASONED JUXTAPOSITION OF READINGS
For the weeks specified, all students will be expected to produce a reasoned juxtaposition of some concept(s) from at
least two of the readings for that seminar, and turn it into the professor. It is recommended both as a reading
heuristic for students, as well as an indication of the level at which students are critically reading the assigned
readings. The materials must fit on one page, and must derive at least in part from the readings for that day’s
readings (and may include in addition materials from other readings in the course). The entire assignment must fit on
a single sheet of paper, and have font no smaller than 10-point Arial, 10-point Calibri or 11-point Times Roman (1-inch
margins). Exemplary student juxtapositions should serve as bases for student lines of questions and oral argument
during class discussions throughout the semester. Juxtapositions will be graded on a simple scale as follows:
Assessment Rubric
Either no assignment is turned in on time, or the materials are either not logically
interconnected, or represent the most surface extraction of meanings from the
readings, indicating a shallow or hurried reading of the course materials.
Points
0
1
Relevant concepts are mentioned but are defined in a shallow manner; linkages
among concepts are loose or strained; implications lack credibility or import.
2
3
Relevant concepts are formulated and connected, but the links are somewhat
obvious and lacking in depth of intellectual challenge.
4
5
At least one substantive juxtaposition is identified, leading to a contradiction,
paradox, or theoretical principle. The result is a single reasonable claim that furthers
the content of the readings considered individually, but integrates or suggests little
else beyond this single concept.
6
7
The contradiction, paradox or theoretical principle is unfolded into several directions,
but the import or implications are inconsistent in quality or implications are left
without explication.
8
9
Multiple implications are derived from the juxtaposition(s) of concepts identified in
the readings. The implications are extended into multiple directions of analysis or
synthesis with other concepts identified in the course.
10