PhD Students Learning the Process of Academic Writing: The Role of the Rhetorical Rectangle

PhD students are enculturated into scholarly writing through relationships with their supervisors and other faculty. As part of a doctoral writing group, we explored students’ experiences that affected their writing, both cognitively and affectively, and how these experiences made them feel about themselves as academic writers. Six first and second year doctoral students participated in formal group discussions and wrote personal narratives about their writing experiences. Data were analyzed according to the elements of logos, ethos, pathos, and kairos. Analysis revealed that students were struggling with their identities as academic writers, not feeling as confident as they Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie Volume 31, 2021 http://journals.sfu.ca/dwr 137 had before their programs, and questioning some of the pedagogy of teaching academic writing. The results included the development of a rhetorical rectangle comprising the four elements: logos, ethos, pathos, and kairos, which could be used for pedagogical writing strategies.

original). And, Ramage et al. (2016) discussed how kairos contributes to an argument's effectiveness, as in when and where to make a particular point. Harker (2007) transformed the rhetorical triangle into a rhetorical pyramid with the four elements as the vertices and emphasizing the role of kairos.
For our work, we took a slightly different approach and decided to situate ourselves within a rhetorical rectangle to study doctoral students' academic writing experiences and to claim that the four dimensions of the rhetorical rectangle work together to comprise academic writing. And, although we coined the term rhetorical rectangle as a model for academic writing, we acknowledge that this term has been used in different contexts. For example, Simonson (2014) used this term in reference to Aune's (2008) work on social spaces that occurred at particular moments in time, related to Aristotle's rhetoric, but not to writing.

Logos
Evidence, proof, and reason are just a few words that commonly describe what logos means in rhetoric, but "logos is a word of notoriously many meanings" (Moss, 2014, p. 182). The Greek word logos is considered to mean reason or logic in many contexts (Boscolo & Hidi, 2006;Connors, 1979: Tinelli, 2016, and is thought by some to be the rhetorical triangle's foundation as it traditionally refers to logic, clarity, and validity in scientific writing (Tinelli, 2016). Tinelli argued that logos also includes the "negotiation of purpose and authority in the construction of new knowledge claims" (p. 103). Within the contexts of the rhetorical triangle, and the rhetorical rectangle put forward in this paper, logos is most notably evident through the strength of the logical argument. This argument is supported by evidence, facts, data, and other information necessary to convince the reader of the merits of the article's argument (Ramage et al. 2016;Thompson, 2016).
One example of a logical argument structure that speaks to logos would be the Toulmin argument developed by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin (1958Toulmin ( /2003. The Toulmin argument consists of a logical and sequential writing process that includes the following components: claim, warrant, backing, evidence, rebuttal, and qualifiers (Brockriede & Ehninger, 1960). Ting (2018) also noted, "in a rhetorical analysis, the appeal to logos can be identified from the use of argumentation, logic, warrants/justification, claims, data, and evidence/examples" (p. 238). Carefully crafted text incorporating a Toulmin argument represents the logos component of the rhetoric, allowing authors to logically present their thesis and convince readers of their position.
Complementing these thoughts, logos, according to Ramage et al. (2016), focuses not only on the type of evidence to use in an argument, but also how to use this evidence in an ethical, responsible, Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie Volume 31, 2021 http://journals.sfu.ca/dwr 141 and persuasive manner to strengthen academic arguments. We assert that although logos has some discrete characteristics, it also functions interdependently with ethos, pathos, and kairos to enhance the persuasive nature of the writing; deemed necessary as academic writing is meant to be persuasive in nature (Ramage et al. 2016;Thompson, 2016).

Ethos
The concept of ethos speaks to the writer's credibility so that readers can trust what is being read and feel confidence in the writing and the writer. There are mixed thoughts about whether ethos resides in the writer or the writing. Lutzke and Henggeler (2009) explained Aristotle's understanding of ethos in terms of "the role of the writer in the argument, and how credible his/her argument is" (p. 1). Tinelli (2016) agreed with Lutze and Henggeler and affirmed that ethos focuses on the writer as it aims to ensure that the writer meets the standards of credible and reliable information.
However, Bloch (2010) argued that citations and verb choice are indicators of the ethos of the writer and the writing claims, while Ramage et al. (2016) contend that Aristotle's notion of ethos emanates from what is written, or the argument itself, not the writer.
Ethos responds to the question of why a reader would be interested in reading a certain text, or why a reader would choose a certain author. Academia produces numerous texts every year, and ethos contributes to the competitive world of publishing certain texts over others. Ethos comprises how well the author conveys a knowledge base and alternative viewpoint; whether the author appears invested in the claim being made; and if the writer demonstrates professionalism in terms of appropriate writing style and genre conventions, correct grammar, and properly cited references.
However, knowledge alone may not be enough to convince readers that a writer or a piece of writing is worth reading. Ramage et al. (2016) suggested that writers should be able to show their broad understanding of the topic in terms of both arguments and counterarguments to show awareness of arguments that have already been established. To be credible, academic writers need to situate themselves within the broader literature by taking clear positions and drawing conclusions both for and against previous scholarly work in order to explain their chosen position and, eventually, develop their authorial identity (Ennals et al., 2016;Inouye & McAlpine, 2019). Kindt (2016) wrote about the traditional complexity of academic language and argued for simpler, more accessible language intended to clarify academic arguments, inevitably adding to the ethos of the writing. Logos may be thought of as the argument being put forth, but ethos is intended to strengthen the portrayal of the persuasive argument.

Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie
Volume 31, 2021 http://journals.sfu.ca/dwr Pathos Authors have a purpose when writing, and for personal writing they need only consider their own beliefs and values. The author's personal commitments to the text and emotions may be present in academic writing, but academic writing is intended to be shared with an audience, often other academics. Some of these readers will have shared interests and similar beliefs, others will need persuasion to accept differing views. Thus, the expectations and feelings of the intended audience must be considered if the writer is looking for engagement in the text. Pathos appeals to the readers' emotions and imagination. Thompson (2016) stated, "it is important to express your personality within your campaign to persuade the reader to your points of view" (p. 2). The writer has to consider the beliefs and values of the intended audience, and through pathos can convince readers by invoking security, love, guilt, pity, humour (Gabrielsen & Christiansen, 2010), or anger, insult, empathy, fear, confusion (Mshvenieradze, 2013), all of which fit with the affective domain. Pathos helps to put "the audience into a certain frame of mind" (Demirdöğen, 2010, p. 190). Braet (1992) noted that while pathos is non-argumentative and an inferior form of persuasion and that only logos is based in argumentation, pathos can be important for conveying successful arguments through appealing to readers' emotions (Mshvenieradze, 2013), leading to synergy between logos and pathos. Ramage et al. (2016) classified some of the strategies writers can use to make this appeal. They identified concrete language; specific examples and illustrations; narratives; and connotation of words, metaphors, and analogies. Attention to pathos, along with ethos, strengthens the persuasive argumentation that is an integral part of academic writing.

Kairos
Kairos is concerned with timing and appropriateness. The Greek god Chronos was the god of time, and his counterpart was Kairos, the god of opportunity. The Greeks recognized that while time is always moving forward or chronological, there are some moments in time that are better than others when considering action. Scott (2013) explained that "different from chronos, the linear passing of time, kairos means a rhetor has found the opportune time to act and is acting in the appropriate measure" (p. 1). Thus, the concept of kairos as moments of time was incorporated into speech, action, and rhetoric by ancient philosophers.

Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie
Volume 31, 2021 http://journals.sfu.ca/dwr 143 Aristotle's rhetoric connects kairos to arguments as well as style and organization, the ethos domain (Kinneavy and Eskin, 2000). Kinneavy and Eskin argued that kairos is a necessity to writing, but was often neglected "in part, to its absence in reference dictionaries," (p. 442). Similarly, Bloch (2010) argued for the importance of incorporating kairos so students can learn to create "an appropriate argument at the appropriate time", and claimed that this is a "point that has frequently been ignored" (p. 240). We need to consciously think about kairos when writing and explicitly teach the concept to students.
Harker (2007) expanded on Kinneavy and Eskin's (2000) concept of kairos, explaining that "kairos is charged with ethical concerns and relativism; it remains both situational and contextual and represents, at times, a moment at which one must finally act" (p. 84). The ethical dimension goes one step further than pathos because it considers who or what is being written about and not just the audience's perspective. For example, in qualitative research, the specific choices of quotations, interpretations, or explanations to include in writing have ethical considerations that academics must consider. Ramage et al. (2016) wrote that "kairos reminds us that a rhetorical situation is not stable and fixed, but evolves as events unfold or as audiences experience the psychological ebbs and flows of attention and care" (p. 111). They maintained that having kairos is to "be attuned to the total context of a situation in order to act in the right way at the right moment" (p. 111). Thomson and Kamler (2013) discussed a similar notion when they recommended locating writing within "the context of the discourse community and the field in general" (p. 61).

Method
Our study is based in a subjective/interpretive epistemology, drawn from the perspectives of six PhD students who were required to write within an academic discourse which has particular expectations, some more explicit than others. Each student's reality was honored, recognizing that they were not necessarily objective and that their biases lent strength to the inferences they made.
They did not hide their biases, and instead, used them to explore and explicate their beliefs and values.

Participants
Six students took two first year PhD courses, (a) group course on advanced research methodologies that required them to write within specific research genres, and (b) individual course with their supervisors that focused on their substantive areas of study and other types of academic writing. In addition, they participated in a voluntary PhD student and faculty writing group which met weekly (and is still occurring). There were five first year students and one second year student, ranging in age from late twenties to early fifties. Their backgrounds include teaching, educational leadership, counselling, pharmacy, and organizational development (see Table 1).

Ethics
Institutional ethics approval was not required as it was a self-study, but a framework of relational ethics backgrounded this study. Relational ethics is "informed by a caring attitude toward others" (Uhrmacher et al., 2017, p. 28) and negotiation throughout the research process. We acknowledge the power differential between the faculty member and students, but this was not a class where the instructor was awarding grades. Rather, she listened to the students' thoughts and feelings, and did not voice any thoughts during the discussions. She did encourage them to speak openly and they had the choice of what parts of the data they felt comfortable including in the paper. The students were enthusiastic about conducting a study and getting the opportunity to write a paper together for publication.

Data collection
We conducted two formal group discussions connecting the students' thoughts and feelings about their writing experiences in their doctoral courses and with their supervisors. The discussion leader an appropriate approach to delve into the students' emotions as well as their more cognitive thoughts. In fact, we started with the red hat part of the discussion which led us into the affective domain immediately as the red hat focuses on feelings. De Bono's framework aligned well with our stance that writing encapsulates both the cognitive and affective domains. Other than being appropriate to the rhetorical rectangle concept as both include the cognitive and affective domains, we do not make a meaningful connection between the two. While the red hat denotes feelings, the white hat emphasizes cognition. The yellow, black, and green hats require a mixture of cognitive and affective domains, and the blue hat is for leading the discussion (Table 2). Thus, we embedded our discussion within the categories of facts, feelings, judgement, and possibilities. We audio-recorded the discussions and transcribed them verbatim.
The students also wrote individual narratives to personalize their stories about writing within the academic context, with both common and individual experiences. They used a holistic narrative construction (Barone, 2007) to interpret their involvement in the world of academic writing as student scholars (Josselson, 2011;Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2008;Schwandt, 2007).
Data include 96 minutes of audio-recording, 16 pages of transcription, and 14 pages of narratives.
After the discussions were over, and as a concluding consideration of the rhetorical rectangle, the students rated the four elements for their importance in writing and two students created a figure to represent their thoughts and feelings (in findings section).  (1992) Last, co-creating the paper entails trust and recognition of the power differential. The student narratives were not co-created, and they served as data as well as a form of student representation.
The students and faculty member reached consensus on the overall interpretations, accepting that not all students thought the same about some specific issues and that differences as well as agreements would be part of the findings.

Analysis
We used structural coding (Saldana, 2016) to search for thoughts and feelings about their academic writing experiences, meaning our first cycle of coding included searching for responses to the discussion prompts related to de Bono's Six Thinking Hats (1985Hats ( /1992. For example, the red hat was used to explore feelings so our first coding was around feelings related to writing. For second cycle coding (Saldana, 2016) we used pattern coding to establish commonalities and differences among the students' feelings and thoughts.
In addition, we used keywords-in-context analysis (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2008) to contextualize words that fit with the four elements of the rhetorical rectangle (e.g., confidence for pathos). Using more than one type of analysis resulted in the choice of quotes and explanatory details that we used to elaborate our findings and provide thick description.

Findings
We organized the findings according to the elements of logos, ethos, pathos, and kairos. Our analyses revealed that these categories apply to more than actual writing products, they apply directly to students' thoughts and feelings about learning to become academic writers. We provide examples of how these categories fit so aptly with the students' thoughts and feelings. We have included quotes from the discussion and narrative data to enrich the descriptions and enhance clarity. When a quote is from the narratives, we used the verb "wrote" or indicated it was from a narrative to distinguish these quotes from the discussions. Student-created pseudonyms are used. Each element heading includes a student quote.
Even though the four writing elements included cognitive and affective perspectives, the affective-the feelings-was sometimes expressed so passionately that we include a fifth category labeled "The Role of the Affective Domain". This is not intended to infer that the affective domain is Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie Volume 31, 2021 http://journals.sfu.ca/dwr 149 not a vital part of the rhetorical rectangle, but that it deserves its own category, as its own right, in our findings. Our last finding is the rhetorical rectangle visual (see Figure 1).
Logos: "I have to follow a specific structure designed by someone" Students were coming to grips with what they perceived as general academic writing expectations about structure in their disciplines. Humphrey saw some value in these expectations, as in "I appreciate there is a structure and an acceptance that things are written in a certain style, regardless of the topic or the subject, argument, counter argument, introduction, so it has a nice logical flowing structure". Apollo explained that for him, "it was a learning process of what exactly it means to use logic in an academic writing scenario". And, Rowan expressed, it is very helpful when a prof will lay things very basically, like these are the expectations and this is what we need from you, and that at least is a starting point because without having clarity around the types of writing that they want, even if it's just bi-weekly update emails then I feel untethered, like maybe my freight train is going in some direction that maybe I shouldn't be going.
However, not all students made positive observations. For example, Adam talked about different expectations for Western writing opposed to other cultures, as in having to provide counterarguments and references for all your thoughts. It troubled Adam that "writing in a language that is not one's own requires time and effort to be mastered", and that "the first critical feedback I received from my instructors rang a bell for me that I had to abide by certain rules even when my argument was valid or true".
In addition, students did not always agree on the type of feedback that might be helpful. Adam was adamant that "we need people who give us feedback like how you strengthen your argument rather than why didn't you see it from another perspective". But Stompy thought a little differently, "sometimes you don't see the other perspective until someone shows you".
Learning to cope with and benefit from disparate feedback was deemed a hurdle for some. For Diana, "the greatest challenge was to digest feedback comments from two instructors who seemed at opposite ends". This provided an extra burden in moving forward with her writing so she "started focusing on the positive comments and hand-picked constructive comments leaving out negative comments" during her first year as a PhD student. She decided she would learn to process negative comments as she progressed through the program.
Ethos: "I've struggled a lot with credibility" (Rowan) Adam posed reservations about the structure of referencing that he thought was being imposed on them as PhD students. He emphasized, "there are things there is no way to express because it is very strict, in English when I say something I have to find references for that, sometimes it's MY idea, but then again someone else said it, sometimes I feel it's common sense so why do I have to reference that". Several students agreed with Adam and did not think they should have to reference as much as was being required, especially pertaining to what Stompy called "common knowledge" or "established fact". However, Humphrey said he had no trouble with it as it related to credibility.
Adam spoke passionately about ethos, and felt that faculty did not appreciate his credibility as a knowledgeable writer as much as they judged his grammar. He acknowledged the role of grammar in ethos, but expressed in exasperation, "I also feel that if I have a great idea, I don't know how to write well in academic, follow the rules of academic writing in English, so the great idea will mean nothing, so we care more about the rules than the ideas we come up with". Apollo and Rowan addressed this same point slightly differently. Apollo reasoned, it also has to have transitions, it also has to make sense structurally, it also has to sound good, if it's disjointed language the flow isn't there, so it has to have that audience appeal, emotional appeal altogether, and eventually it becomes kind of intuitive rather than having to kind of consciously think about the flow.
And, Rowan wrote in his narrative that "to use the wrong word in the wrong place can destroy any hope of gaining legitimacy as a scholar". Rowan connected ethos and kairos in this statement as he also wrote about how language is often used differently among the disciplines and how using a particular word or phrase might be deemed wrong in certain situations, which would then affect the credibility of the writer in that particular discipline; hence, ethos.
Apollo recognized early on that credibility had to be built and that it was a complex process. He shared in his narrative how he tried to develop credibility, "Learning to develop credibility was as much an emotional process as it was a mechanical process. I began going to more research conferences, presenting posters and presentations locally and nationally, as well as submitting Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie Volume 31, 2021 http://journals.sfu.ca/dwr written work to magazines and journals". Diana, too, wrote that she made a conscious effort to attend to ethos, "I started to elaborate more on the citations that I referenced using examples that supported ethos and provided credibility to the writing".
Pathos: "It was very difficult for me to identify who I was writing for" Students were grappling with the role of the audience, the readers of their work. This recognition of how the reader's beliefs, values, and feelings could influence reception of their writing sometimes produced consternation, and even a little rebellion, as they began to realize its role in the academic world of writing.
Stompy had some queries about student writing for courses, as in "when you're doing course work, who is the audience for what you're writing, and when you're getting feedback on it, am I writing for myself, am I writing for my course instructors". Diana shared Stompy's frustration, "I thought I was writing for myself, so even sharing your experience it takes like a little time to express, are you allowed to share your experience, are you allowed to use the tone I in your papers".
Apollo explained his growing understanding of how he must write for certain audiences, thinking about the audience, the journal that I'm writing for, the conference I'm writing for, the people I'm writing for, you know postmodern people are going to get that so they'll be more ok with liberties in writing, quantitative people…are not going to be ok with that… Timing can depend on current events, on the perceptions within the field, or how saturated an area is or isn't which impacts if things get accepted or not. Of course, that list is not exhaustive, but overall I found kairos to be especially applicable to the publishing process for learning how and when to go after an idea or a topic.
Several students had uncertainties about this aspect of writing. Stompy revealed in his narrative, "my dilemma is how much I need to spell out for my audience and how much do I expect them understand before reading my work". Rowan commented on the ability to know "the small ways you can make an argument that makes it sound fundamentally different at the end of the day". And Apollo ruminated in his narrative that "if kairos is about timing and appropriateness, then I found that both are dependent on planning and flexibility". Humphrey summed it up neatly with "the concept of kairos will require attention from me as the balancing of logos, ethos, and pathos within a piece of writing will be heavily dependent on context and timing".
The Role of the Affective Domain: "You have to choose your master or pick your poison" (Humphrey) Students were no longer feeling confident as writers, or at least thought they were being made to feel as if they could not write as well as before beginning their programs. They groaned that writing can be "hard on the ego". Apollo said some comments made them feel like their "writing is crap" and resulted in some students feeling reluctant to give their writing to others, particularly faculty, to read.
Rowan remarked, "I am not able to express myself because of this fear that I'm wrong". Rowan even used the word "stupid" when describing his feelings after receiving feedback, "I have never felt more stupid than trying to write for publication as a PhD student because all this stuff that I thought I knew is like, No, you don't know jack all". And, Stompy wrote, "it is … fascinating that while I educate budding pharmacists in oral and written communication, the academy makes me feel vulnerable about my writing".
Students, during the discussions, interspersed their comments with emotional statements, even though they were only asked about feelings during the "red hat" discussion prompt. They agreed that writing is an emotional process as well as a cognitive challenge. Diana stated, it's a very emotional process, like when you get feedback, it takes time to sink in because you feel you have given all your effort and then when you see it all shredded apart you don't, so it is an emotional process, but then at the back of your mind you know that this is learning, but yeah it is emotional, too. Students had a few positive thoughts about their doctoral writing experiences, but they were minimal. They included the chance for self-expression, a form of therapy, increased understanding of what they were reading, forced organization of thoughts, and getting your ideas "out there". Adam said it gave him "presence" as a writer, and several discussed how they were happy that writing makes your thoughts real, resulting in a tangible product. Diana described how the writing group helped in overcoming being "lonely and emotional". And Rowan, on a positive note, shared, it's nice, when you write a paper it's done, and you print it off and you can hold it and touch it in a way, I always hug my papers afterward, there's something very nice and tangible and concrete (Adam -yeah) that you don't get in other modes of communication.
In addition, Humphrey acknowledged that "writing is a means to help you better understand what you are reading, through critical analysis, to sometimes choose a side or at least force oneself to side with an opinion or data". Apollo described his writing as "something you can touch and feel versus thoughts and conversations that kind of float in the air". Rowan summed it up, "it's really exciting to think of the ability to propel the ideas that I care about in the world through this particular mechanism in addition to the other ways I try to talk and unpack and explore the same ideas".

The Rhetorical Rectangle
The students assigned rankings to the four elements, and Humphrey and Stompy used these rankings to create a two-dimensional rhetorical rectangle model. For our rhetorical rectangle we situate writing in the intertwining of the four elements that are dependent upon each other (see Figure 1).
As Figure 1 depicts, the four elements contribute substantially to academic writing. They work in complementarity with each other and meet in the middle to illustrate how they have discrete characteristics but are interdependent. Furthermore, the affective and cognitive domains are imbued within the elements of the rhetorical rectangle.

Pedagogical Implications and Concluding Thoughts
Writing as a process is a vital part of doctoral education. Many graduate students struggle to understand the writing process and sometimes find it challenging to meet academic writing requirements, which differ from one institution to another, from one discipline to another, and even one supervisor to another. Not only is writing a cognitive process, but it has been an emotional process for these students. Prior to their doctoral programs these students had self-confident identities, but as first and second year PhD students they were not sure where they belonged in the academic world of writing.
These students have conveyed powerful messages for those who work with PhD students, as supervisors, instructors, and mentors. The rhetorical rectangle-logos, ethos, pathos, and kairosshould be explicitly acknowledged, including the interplay of these four elements. These four elements contribute as much to student writing and emotional well-being as any form of graduate instruction. We recommend that these elements of writing should be discussed with doctoral students as a crucial part of the pedagogical practices of immersing doctoral students into the discourse of scholarly writing. We also emphasize the role of the affective domain to writing, and argue that the rhetorical rectangle provides a framework that allows the affective and the cognitive to intertwine.
From a pedagogical perspective, if instructors emphasize, as an example, ethos-based errors such as diction or style, it may lead students to think that these are the most important things and that their piece of writing is static or "frozen in time" (Harker, 2007, p. 88). Harker argued for incorporating kairos in feedback to "signal to our students that both they and their readers know precisely what is at stake in their writing" (p. 94). It requires that educators think about kairos and