General Summary: Professor Catherine Chaput talks about her studies in neoliberalism and branding affects, particularly the Trump brand in the presidential campaign. Several undergraduate students from the University of Texas at Austin come up with questions about Trump's branding strategy, its rhetorical meaning and the impact of his strategy on politics and economics.

Detailed Summary: Brief introduction of Professor Catherine Chaput and her article (00:00-00:37); Summary of the main claim (00:37-03:06); Professor Chaput giving her definition of "affect," and how that definition differs from Brian Ott and Greg Dickinson's use of the term (03:06-07:41); Professor Chaput's definition of "branding" and its rhetorical meaning in a culture (07:41-10:30); Professor Chaput’s opinion “Make America great again” (10:30-14:19); Professor Chaput's thoughts on affective micro shocks and its relation to Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine (14:19-17:03); Professor Chaput responding to how capitalism affects affective circulation (17:03-19:37); Professor Chaput's discussion on why Trump’s brand will not fail even though it contains falsities and why Trump’s brand is successful and working continuously for Trump (19:37-26:01); Professor Chaput pressing the point of the article and providing references of related topics (26:01-27:10); Conclusion of the podcast and giving credits (27:10-28:12).

Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Chaput, Catherine. “Trumponomics, Neoliberal Branding, and the Rhetorical Circulation of Affect”. Advances in the History of Rhetoric, vol. 21, no. 2, 2018, pp. 194-209.

Credits: This podcast was facilitated by Professor Mark Longaker and produced by Chia-Ying Ni and Yuyi Liu. It features the voices of David Minton, Tucker Britt, Zhihao Chen, and Professor Catherine Chaput. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround”, was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.

General Summary: Professor Donnie Sackey talks about his work on dynamics of environmental public policy deliberation, environmental justice and environmental cultural history.

Detailed Summary: Reason of interests in PAMs and PAM’s effects in life.( 00.55-4:52) That affordability and potential profits are mutually supportive with pathetic to environmental justice and participants’ needs by using apple watch as an example.(4.52-8.55)All can participate in bringing the principle of environmental justice into the design process(8.55-12.55)Collecting historical data helps people know more but we can not know how these results will act.(12.55-17.08) All people can make a change to environmental justice.(17.08-21.42)Impacts can help us about COVID-19(21.42-25.57)Teaching style influenced by principles of participatory design.(25.57-27.20)

Scholarly Article Informing this Production:Sackey, Donnie. (2019). One-Size-Fits-None: A Heuristic for Proactive Value Sensitive Environmental Design. Technical Communication Quarterly. 10.1080/10572252.2019.1634767.

Credits: This podcast was produced by Mark Longaker, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Donnie Sackey and Andrew Hart. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.

General Summary: Professor Linda Ferreira-Buckley discusses the importance of a rhetorical education and how this concept applies to Barbara Jordan’s life. Ferreira-Buckley talks with two undergraduate students about the process of learning rhetoric throughout one’s life and her experience at The University of Texas at Austin’s Rhetoric and Writing Department.

Detailed Summary: Introduction providing context regarding Linda Ferreira-Buckley and Barbara Jordan’s lives (00.00-02.29); Ferreira-Buckley’s ethical connection between Barbara Jordan and Quintilian’s book Institutio Oratoria (02.30-04.06); Ferreira-Buckley’s educational background and her interest in eighteenth and nineteenth century rhetoric (04.07-06.51); Ferreira-Buckley’s emerging interest in Barbara Jordan (06.52-11.16); In-depth description as to what a rhetorical education is and how it shaped Jordan’s life (11.17-17.53); Ferreira-Buckley’s understanding as to why an individual's rhetorical education cannot be separated into categories, as each aspect is interconnected and equally influential (17.54-20.49); How Jordan’s political career would be different without her rhetorical education and life experiences (20.50-22.41); Students’ experiences outside of formal education are imperative to forming their ability to become great rhetors (22.42-26.21); Ferreira-Buckley’s honors program course taught in Fall 2020 and its importance (26.22-29.24).

Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Ferreira-Buckley, L.. (2013). "Remember the world is not a playground but a schoolroom": Barbara Jordan's early rhetorical education. Rhetoric, History, and Women's Oratorical Education: American Women Learn to Speak. 196-216. 10.4324/9780203073773.

Credits: This podcast was produced by Madeline Simpkins, Brianna Margo, Rose Torres, Brett Coulston and Gabby Ponds, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Linda Ferreira-Bickley, Gabby Ponds and Rose Torres. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.

General Summary: Professor Casey Boyle talks about the concepts of posthumanism, humanism, and dystopia as described in his work “A Sustainable Dystopia.” Several UT Austin students reflect on Boyle’s work by asking how he first got into philosophical topics, what the thesis of his work is, and how today’s world would be viewed through a posthuman perspective.

Detailed Summary: Introduction and Boyle’s background in philosophical concepts (00:00-4:37). Defining humanism and posthumanism (4:37-10:20). General thesis of the paper (10:27-14:30) Technology through a posthumanist lens (14:30-17:04). Three types of dystopi and dystopian writing technologies (17:04-23:27). Today’s world through a posthumanist perspective (23:32-26:08). Online learning impact on Boyle’s classes and accessibility (26:08-30:25). Conclusion and credits (30:25-31:53).

Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Boyle, Casey and LeMieux, Steven. “A Sustainable Dystopia.” Kenneth Burke + The Posthuman, 2017, pp. 203-205.

Credits: This podcast was produced by Ainsley McClain, Brandon Jenkins, Hannah Ortega, Jake Faust, and Lindsey Holubec with the assistance provided by Professor Mark Longaker at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Professor Casey Boyle, Brandon Jenkins, Jake Faust, Hannah Ortega, and Lindsey Holubec. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.

General Summary: Dr. Scott Graham talks about his article written in collaboration with Dr. Linda Walsh, “There’s No Such Thing as Scientific Controversy.” Two students from Dr. Mark Longaker’s Principles of Rhetoric course at The University of Texas at Austin ask Dr. Graham questions about the article, attempting to gain a better understanding of the intricacies of scientific controversy.

Detailed Summary: Episode introduction (00.00-0.25) Dr. Graham's work at the University of Texas at Austin with computational rhetoric (01.16-04.31); Other courses taught by Dr. Graham at UT (04.32-05.50); Overview of "There’s No Such Thing As Scientific Controversy” (06.04-07.31); Why there is so much scholarly controversy about scientific controversies? (08.02-9:50); Defining what kind of scientific controversy COVID-19 is (0.9.54-12.09); Discussing whether or not scientific controversies exist (12.55-15.50); Defining "praxiography" and how it differs from other forms of analysis of scholarly work (16.31-17.37); Conclusion and credits (18.53-19.25).

Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Graham Scott and Lynda Walsh. "There's No Such Thing as a Scientific Controversy." _Technical Communication Quarterly_ (2019): https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2019.1571243

Credits: This podcast was produced by Zoe Howard, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at The University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Cassie Williams, Will Hunter, Dr. Scott Graham, and questions from Brandon Jenkins, Ainsley McClain, and Savannah Smart. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.

General Summary: In this podcast, we talk with Professor and Director of the University Writing Center, Patricia Roberts-Miller. Interviewing is University of Texas student, Jacob Miller. The two go on to discuss over her article, Demagoguery, Charismatic Leadership, and the Force of Habit and other topics related to her work and studies. The podcast includes a narrator, Cole Burke, and occasional comments made by students of the RHE 321 class in connection to discussion points that talked about throughout the podcast.

Detailed Summary: The podcast begins by Professor Roberts-Miller introducing her background, where she studied and taught in the past, before she came to the University of Texas(01:07-01:54). She jokes about her previous works as “trainwrecks in public deliberation” and other topics that she tended to study (02:05-05:24). She then goes on to talk about previous courses she has taught, and currently teaching at the University of Texas (05:25 -07:02). Jacob then goes on to ask the Professor the hard-hitting question of “What is a Demagogue?” (07:04-07:34). What follows next focuses on the in-class discussion over the article, raising questions from students and having Professor Roberts-Miller respond to them and give insights (08:12-25:04). Within this discussion, Jacob asks about engaging in demagoguery (08:12-09:36), a clip of a discussion point by classmate, Dabaya Alrefaei and Professor Roberts-Miller’s thoughts on the topic (10:20- 14:22). We then get to hear some insight by fellow classmate, Cason Hunwick and his discussion over the media related to her article (14:55-15:55)as well as Professor Roberts-Miller and her response (16:04-17:50). Then we hear a deep conversation over the followers of demagogues and follow up questions by Jacob to finish the interview (17:59-25:04). The podcast then goes to the final statements, conducted by Cole Burke, and the music fades into the ultimate ending of the podcast (25:05-26:41).

Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Patricia Roberts-Miller, “Demagoguery,

Charismatic Leadership, and the Force of Habit.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 49:3 (2019): 233-247.

Credits: This podcast was produced by Cole Burke, Jacob Miller, Jose Morales Mendez, and Parker Neri , with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. The production of this podcast was in part due to the teachings of Professor Mark G. Longaker of the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Cole Burke, Jacob Miller, Particia Roberts-Miller, Cason Hunwick, and Dabaya Alrefaei. Music featured in this podcast, were given to the students of RHE 321 by Professor Mark G. Longaker for intended use in this podcast. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license . Finally, the full class conversations were recorded by the Digital Writing and Research Lab.

General Summary: Professor Rasha Diab discusses her research on peacemaking rhetoric in the Arab-Islamic tradition and her academic journey within the discipline. Undergraduate students in Dr. Longaker’s Fall 2019 RHE321 Principles of Rhetoric class share their impressions of Dr. Diab’s work, and their feelings toward the unfamiliar modes of peacemaking and conflict resolution that Diab’s work reveals.

Detailed Summary & Timestamps: Dr. Diab’s experience and work in peacemaking, the Arab-Islamic tradition in cultural rhetoric studies, and understanding violence (00:00-04:15); “Sulh” practices as modern peacemaking rhetoric and the Chancery in Al-Qalqashandi’s Encyclopedia (04:16-13:18); Punitive versus non-punitive justice and the tradition of “Dafn,” as well as classroom discussion featuring Dr. Mark Longaker and Rebecca Atwood (13:19-18:06); The asymmetry of power inherent in peacemaking and the example of “Ubuntu,” as well as classroom discussion featuring Dabya Alrafaei and Cason Hunwick (18:07-21:16); The Arabic vocabulary for peace and the art of apology (21:17-25:37); “Eye for an eye”: a tradition in justice (25:36-27:35); The challenges of learning and teaching peacemaking rhetoric (27:36-32:05); Scholarly Article informing this Production: Diab, Rasha. "Peacemaking and the Chancery in Medieval Cairo: Revisiting Medieval Arabic Rhetoric." Rhetoric Across Borders, Parlor Press, 2003, pp. 121-31.

Credits: This podcast was produced by Lillie Munoz, Dabya Alrafaei, and Rebecca Atwood, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Rasha Diab, Mark Longaker, Dabya Alrafaei, Rebecca Atwood, and Cason Hunwick. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.

General Summary: Professor Clay Spinuzzi discusses his research on the role of rhetoric in early stage entrepreneurship and organizational communication. Undergraduate rhetoric students discuss the role of persuasion in entrepreneurship, the importance of knowing your audience, and the role of mentorship in learning rhetorical techniques.

Detailed Summary: Introduction of Spinuzzi and his work (00.00-02.15); Spinuzzi on organizational communication (02.15-03.58); Spinuzzi describes the changing nature of work and the evolution of his research (03.58-06.24); Spinuzzi discusses his book and the concept of “all edge” (03.58-9.12); Spinuzzi discusses recent research on SEAL, an entrepreneurship program at UT Austin (9.12-12.35); Spinuzzi explains the importance of persuasion in product pitching (12.35-14.25); Spinuzzi describes ideal mentorship (14.25-18.54); Spinuzzi responds to a comment on the role of rhetoric in product creation from Sydney Jones (18.54-23.04); Spinuzzi responds to a question on mentorship in the SEAL program from Kendall Haase (23.04-27.53); Spinuzzi describes implicit versus explicit rhetorical instruction (27.53-30:21); Conclusion, description of program, and credits (30.21-33.47).

Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Spinuzzi, Clay et al. “Go or No Go: Learning to Persuade in an Early-Stage Student Entrepreneurship Program.” 2019, pp. 112-120. 10.1109/ProComm.2019.00026.

Credits: This podcast was produced by Aaron Anaya, Cason Hunwick, Nick Ramirez and Olivia Speed with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Nick Ramirez, Cason Hunwick, Clay Spinuzzi, Kendall Haase, Sydney Jones and Olivia Speed. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.

General Summary: Professor Davida Charney talks about her scholarly background and how she was drawn toward studying biblical rhetoric. For the majority of the podcast, she analyzes and reflects upon her article Taking a Stance toward God: Rhetoric in the Book of Psalms. In response to several questions about the article from undergraduate students in Mark Longaker’s RHE 321 class, she discusses several aspects of the rhetoric of the psalms, including why an omniscient God should be attempted to be persuaded, who the true audience of the psalms was, rhetorical strategies of the psalmists, and the covenantal relationship between God and the Jewish people.

Detailed Summary: Introduction of the podcast and background on Professor Charney (00.00- 01.23); How Charney moved from Penn State to UT Austin and why she moved away from technical writing (01.23-02.16); Charney’s scholarly plans for the future (02.16-03.17); How Charney started doing research and writing about biblical rhetoric (03.17-04.03); Beginning of the discussion about Charney’s article. Charney responding to a question from an undergraduate student (Olivia Speed) about why God should be open to persuasion if he is omniscient (04.03- 07.40); Charney discussing the relationship between the Jewish religion and discourse with God in comparison with other religions (07.40-09.10); Charney discussing how a psalmist may want to try to persuade God in order to make himself more credible in the eyes of the community, in response to a question from an undergraduate student (Cason Hudwick) (09.10-11.22); Charney discussing what the true purpose of trying to persuade God is and who the true audience of the Psalms is, God or the community (11.22-13.23); Charney discussing some rhetorical strategies that the psalmists used and why ethos is one of the most important strategies, in response to a question from an undergraduate student (Jacob Miller) (13.23-16.06); Charney discussing why the psalmists use an “innocent sufferer” archetype and comparing them to other ancient near-Eastern religions (16.06-17.20); Charney discussing an analogy from an undergraduate student (Rebecca Atwood) comparing the relationship between God and the Jewish people to that of a politician and his constituents, emphasizing the covenantal relationship (17.20-19.39); Charney discussing an analogy from an undergraduate student (Cason Hudwick) comparing the relationship between God and the Jewish people to that of a judge and the accused (19.39-22.19); Charney discussing whether or not personal beliefs affect how receptive people are to learning about the psalms from a rhetorical perspective (22.19-24.09); Charney discussing what students walk away with after they complete her upper-division history of rhetoric course about rhetoric in the Old Testament (24.09-25.50); Charney discussing what her favorite psalm is and why (25.50-27.53)

Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Charney, Davida. “Taking a Stance toward God:

Rhetoric in the Book of Psalms.” Jewish Rhetorics, eds. Michael Bernard-Donals and Jan

Fernheimer. Brandeis University Press, 2015. 1-15.

Credits: This podcast was produced by Kendall Haase, Sydney Jones, LaRayne Garza, and Adam Trevino, with resources and assistance provided by Will Burdette and the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Davida Charney, Adam Trevino, Kendall Haase, LaRayne Garza, Olivia Speed, Cason Hudwick, Jacob Miller, Rebecca Atwood, and Sydney Jones. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 License.

General Summary: Professor Diane Davis talks about her article entitled “Creaturely Rhetoric,” which details animal rhetoric and her efforts to bridge the gap between human and animal, as well as afterthoughts she had after the article had been published. Two students pick her brain on it and her research as a whole, delving further into the mind of an experienced rhetorician that manages several important departments at the University of Texas at Austin while still making time to love and understand her dogs.

Detailed Summary: Davis' study of creaturely rhetoric and her answer to whether or not it's harmful to define it (1:10 to 6:55). Davis' response to anthropomorphism and whether we should use it as a lens for studying rhetoric (8:00 to 14:00). Davis gets philosophical as she talks about the "Great Chain of Being," of it existing vertically, and of our (humanity's) place in it (14:30 to 18:40). Davis defines human exceptionalism and what it means in the hierarchical structure of the animal kingdom (18:50 to 20:40). To save animals from humanity's need to understand everything, Davis explains why we shouldn't give them a voice and how ethics/morals tie in to that notion (21:40 to 26:10). Davis defends dogs everywhere and clarifies if an emotional support animal can be a rhetor (27:30 to 33:10). Lastly, Davis considers if all animals can be emotionally supportive or not (33:25 to 35:05). Closing remarks (35:10 to 36:20). Credits (36:25 to End).

Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Davis, Diane. “Creaturely Rhetorics.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 44.1 (2011): 88-94.

Credits: This podcast was produced by Brandy Corona, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Diane Davis, John García, and Christine Carranza. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under the Creative Commons 1.0 License.