Premise

Lots of students have been taught that analysis needs to be organized in one way. While this may be true in specific circumstances with specific goals in mind, that’s exactly the trick. What’s prescribed as an effective way to organize your thoughts—and ultimately, analysis—in one situation might actually be entirely different in another.

So this raises the question: what are these ways to organize your analysis? And how do you decide which one is the most effective for your particular case?

For starters, we need to know what type of analysis we’re using for our examples here. I.e., when we talk about “analysis” we’re referring to a pretty broad range of commentaries from classic literary works to contemporary film. With this in mind, let’s look at the ways to organize a “rhetorical analysis paper.” If you already know what that is, then great! If you don’t, then don’t worry. Simply put: a rhetorical analysis happens when you analyze the “rhetoric” or “argument” of a persuasive work. This could be a speech by a politician seeking votes or an advertisement trying to sell you pain medication. If you’ve ever asked why any of these examples are effective or not at persuading their audience, then you’ve done rhetorical analysis!

If you want a bit more insight, definitely check out our article on ethos, logos, and pathos. Very briefly, these are the key rhetorical strategies in assessing the effectiveness of the aforementioned examples. I.e., in order to determine whether or not a politician is likely to persuade their audience, you have to ask whether they seem credible (ethos), logical (logos), and emotionally engaging (pathos).

Now the only question is how to organize these points for something like a full essay! As you’ll see in the examples below, you essentially have three options for how to organize your paper. Each version has its own pros and cons, so take some time to read them in full and think about which mode might be best for the commentary that you have to work with.

Examples

Chronological

A “chronological analysis” is when you order your analysis by the order that the work itself is presented. This means that the first body paragraph after your introduction starts with the very first analytical noteworthy element from the piece. E.g., in the case of a politician’s speech, you would begin by analyzing how the speaker starts their speech.

Obviously, this sounds like a pretty logical way to organize your analysis. And often, if you’re not sure what format to use, this is definitely a concrete option to go with. Of course, there are pros and cons to every format, so definitely consider these as well:

Thematic

A “thematic analysis” is when you order your analysis by technique. E.g., ethos, logos, and pathos. This is often what students are accustomed to from grade school, and it makes sense since you ensure that you cover all the relevant techniques of whatever piece you’re analyzing.

Of course, as with the chronological format, there are some distinct pros and cons to consider—which might very well determine why you choose one option over the other:

Hybrid

Some instructors prefer/prescribe this last option because they feel like it offers the best of both analytical worlds. Whereas chronological and thematic analyses are set in their structure, a hybrid analysis uses structural considerations from both formats. As such, there are certainly benefits, but also potential challenges from trying to have your analysis cake and eat it too.

Typically, in this format, the first body paragraph still begins with how the author starts their piece, but then varies depending upon what other elements you feel like don’t fit soundly into either format. E.g., you may be reading an article where the author intersperses hyperlinks throughout. But since you feel like it might be clunky to mention this within your chronological format, you decide to address this element later on in your paper—maybe pointing to key instances at various points within the work, thus breaking from the aforementioned structure.

Similarly, you may have overall suggestions in either a chronological or thematic format that simply don’t have a clear place within either structure. E.g., a recommendation for what more the author could do overall, pointing to key places and or techniques throughout your analysis.

Further Considerations

• Again, different contexts have different guidance. If your instructor prescribes for you to follow one of these formats, then do so. They might have reasons for why they want you to organize your analysis in a particular way, even if it’s not initially clear why. In fact, it might be a good idea to ask, even if they don’t mention it, as they may have an expectation that you should already know this—which of course may be an oversight on their part, but better safe than sorry.
• Transferability matters. Keep in mind that the skills garnered from doing this type of analysis (and exercising these organizational principles) can be useful in other cognitive contexts. That’s basically a fancy way of saying that learning and practicing structural skills can help you in other professional environments and situations.
• In all cases, planning helps! When we say “planning” we mean any manner of note-taking, outlining, etc. The more you can organize your thoughts on what you want to analyze about a work, the more it should lead you to figuring out how you want to structure it!

Subscribe below with your email for new topics like this!