Rhetorical Fieldwork as a Productive and Reflexive Democratic Practice
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52610/rhs.v23i79.30Keywords:
rhetorical fieldwork, ethnographic research method, phronetic research method, participatory research, rhetorical agency gazeAbstract
Within the last decade, ethnographic fieldwork has become a prominent part of rhetorical scholarship. As a rhetorical method, it has grown out of ethographic methodology and performance studies and has a clear critical bend. This paper argues that rhetorical fieldwork might distinguish itself more clearly from other ethnographic methodology in two basic respects: One is the grounding of the method in the rhetorician as a competent participant who puts her phronesis, i.e. her practical skill and sense of judgement as a rhetorician, to work in a particular field and situation. The other concerns the obligation of the rhetorician to investigate and develop rhetorical agency, on her own part as well as that of other participants, in the interest of developing and strengthening deliberative democracy. A case study serves to illustrate this epistemology and develop the methodology: The rhetorician becomes part of an aesthetic development project concerned with the visual identity and branding of an old industrial area in Larvik, Norway.
References
Aristoteles. Retorikk . Overs. Tormod Eide. Oslo: Vidarforlaget, 2006.
Aristoteles. Den nikomakiske etikk . Overs. Anfinn Stigen og Øyvind Rabbås. Oslo: Vidarforlaget, 2013.
Ellis, Carolyn, Tony E. Adams og Arthur P. Bochner. “Autoethnography: An Overview.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 12, nr. 1 (2011).
Endres, Danielle, og Samantha Senda-Cook. “Location Matters: The Rhetoric of Place in Protest.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 97, nr. 3 (2011): 257-282.
Flyvbjerg, Bent. “Phronetic Planning Research: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections”, Planning Theory & Practice 3, nr. (2004): 283-206.
Flyvbjerg, Bent. Det konkretes videnskab , Bind 1. København: Akademisk Forlag, 1991.
Flyvbjerg, Bent. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Gade, Sharada. “Praxis and Phronesis as Units of Analysis: Realizing a Social Science that Matters in Practitioner Inquiry.” Reflective Practice 15, nr. 6 (2014): 718-728.
Gelang, Marie. Actiokapitalet – retorikens ickeverbale resurser . Åstorp: Retorikforlaget, 2008.
Hammar, Anna Nilsson. “Theoria, Praxis and Poiesis: Theoretical Considerations on the Circulation of Knowledge in Everyday Life.” I Johan Östling mfl. (red.). Circulation of Knowledge, 107-124. Lund: Lunds Universitet, 2018.
Hansen, Janne Hedegaard. Narrativ dokumentation – en metode til udvikling af pædagogisk arbejde . København: Akademisk Forlag, 2009
Hauser, Gerhard A. “Attending the Vernacular: A Plea for an Ethnographic Rhetoric.” I Christian Meyer og Felix Girke (red.), The Rhetorical Emergence of Culture ,157-172. New York: Berhahn Books, 2011.
Hess, Aaron. “Embodied Judgment. A Call for a Phronetic Orientation in Rhetorical Ethnography.” I Sara L. McKinnon, Robert Asen, Karma R. Chávez og Robert Glenn Howland (red.), text+FIELD: Innovations in Rhetorical Method , 86-100. US/Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2016.
Hess, Aaron. “Rethinking the Place and Process of Rhetoric.” Communication Studies 62 (2011): 127-152.
Jørgensen, Iben Brinch. “The Nexus of the Exclusive. A Rhetorial Field Study of the Remaking of Place Identity”. I Jørgensen, Når steder skapes. Fire studier av stedsutviklingens visuelle retorikk (Doktoravhandling). Oslo: Institutt for lingvistiske og nordiske studier, Universitetet i Oslo, 2016.
Jørgensen, Iben Brinch. “Kulturhuset Bølgen som lærende sted.” I Susanne V. Knudsen (red.), Pedagogiske tekster og ressurser i praksis , 222-253. Oslo: Høgskoleforlaget, 2013.
Kjeldsen, Jens E. Visuel retorik (Doktoravhandling). Institutt for medievitenskap, Universitetet i Bergen, 2002.
Lave, Jean, og Etienne Wenger. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Malkki, Liisa. “Tradition and Improvisation in Ethnographic Fieldwork.” I Allaine Cerwonka og Liisa Malkki (red.), Improvising Theory: Process and Temporality in Ethnographic Fieldwork , 167-188. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.
McGee, Michael Calvin. “Phronesis in the Gadamer versus Habermas Debates.” I Judgment Calls: Rhetoric, Politics, and Indeterminacy , 13–41. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998.
McKerrow, Raymie E. “The Rhetorial Citizen: Enacting Agency”. I Christian Kock og Lisa Villadsen (red.) Contemporary Rhetorical Citizenship , 239-254. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014
McKinnon, Sara L., Robert Asen, Karma R. Chávez og Robert Glenn Howland (red.). text+FIELD: Innovations in Rhetorical Method . Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2016
Middleton, Michael K., Samantha Senda-Cook og Danielle Endres. “Articulating Rhetorical Field Methods: Challenges and Tensions.” Western Journal of Communication 75 (2011): 286-406.
Middleton, Michael, Aaron Hess, Danielle Endres og Samantha Senda-Cook. Participatory Critical Rhetoric: Theoretical and Methodological Foundations for Studying Rhetoric in Situ . Maryland: Lexington Books, 2015
Mortari, Luigina. “Reflectivity in Research Practice: An Overview of Different Perspectives.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2015: 1–9
Pietikainen, Sari, Pia Lane, Hanni Salo og Sirkka Laihiala-Kankainen. “Frozen Actions in the Artic Linguistic Landscape: A Nexus Analysis of Language Processes in Visual Space.” International Journal of Multilingualism 8, nr. 4 (2011): 277-298.
Rosengren, Mats. Doxologi – En essä om kunskap . Andre utgave. Åstorp: Retorikförlaget, 2008.
Scollon, Ron, og Suzie Wong Scollon. Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet . London: Routledge, 2004.
Scollon, Ron og Suzanne Wong Scollon. Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World , London: Routledge, 2003
Scollon, Ron og Suzie Wong Scollon. “Nexus Analysis: Refocusing Ethnography on Action.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 11, nr. 5 (2007): 608-625.
Senda-Cook, Samantha, Michael K. Middleton og Danielle Endres. “Interrogating the ‘Field’.” I text +FIELD: Innovations in Rhetorical Method , red. Sara L. McKinnon, Robert Asen, Karma R. Chávez og Robert Glenn Howland (red.), 22-38. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2016.
Short, Nigel P., Lydia Turner og Alec Grant (red.). Contemporary British Autoethnography . Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2013.
Smith, Daniel L. “Intensifying Phronesis: Heidegger, Aristotle, and Rhetorical Culture.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 36, nr. 1 (2003).
Söderberg, Maria Wolrath. Topos som meningsskapare, Retorikens topiska perspektiv på tänkande og lärande genom argumentation . Ödåkra: Retorikförlaget, 2012.
Svennevig, Jan, Johan L. Tønnesson, Sigrun Svenkerud og Kirsti Klette. “Retoriske ressurser i elevers muntlige framføringer.” Rhetorica Scandinavica 60 (2012): 68-89.
David Zarefsky. “Is Rhetorical Criticism Subversive of Democracy”. I Contemporary Rhetorical Citizenship , red. Christian Kock og Lisa Villadsen, 29-50. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Open Access; CC Erkännande-IckeKommersiell-IngaBearbetningar 4.0
