Skip to content

Rhetorical Studies Reading Group

at the university of illinois

The Rhetorical Studies Reading Group will gather on Friday, April 11 at 2:30 p.m. in 4057 Lincoln Hall to watch Prof. Wendy Hesford of the Ohio State University deliver a public talk titled “Exceptional Children: Human Rights Rhetoric and Recognition Scenes.” Her talk is sponsored by the Rhetoric Society of America as part of its Graduate Student Webinar Series. The talk will be streamed live on YouTube and feature a simultaneous Twitter discussion at #SpectacularRhetorics. We hope you’ll consider joining us!

For more on the talk from RSA check out:  http://associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/ebulletin/view_mail/65890/871830.

If you’re not able to attend but want to keep up with the talk, we hope you’ll follow us along on Twitter: @RSAatUIUC.

Tags: , , , ,

The Rhetorical Studies Reading Group is excited to announce our next group session. The RSRG will be joined by Jordynn Jack to discuss the rhetoric of neuroscience. Jack is an Associate Professor in the Department of English at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Her research interests include: rhetoric and composition, women’s rhetorics, rhetoric of science, rhetorical theory, technical and scientific writing, disability studies, medical humanities, science studies, rhetoric of medicine, heath, and disability, rhetoric and/of neuroscience.

Jack has asked us to examine two different texts in advance of her visit. The first is a piece entitled “This Is Your Brain On Rhetoric.” The second is a video entitled “How to Do Neurorhetorics: a Tutorial.”

The RSRG Meeting with Jordynn Jack will take place on March 6th, from 11:30-1:30 in Lincoln Hall 4007. Any questions can be directed to Katie Irwin at klirwin2@illinois.edu

We are looking forward to seeing you there!

- Katie Irwin, Jon Stone, Rohini Singh, Paul McKean

Tags: , , ,

On January 18, 2014, the Department of Communication hosted the Midwest Winter Workshop. Over 75 graduate students and faculty in rhetorical studies joined us in Lincoln Hall for a day of professional development panels and paper workshop sessions. Over the next several days, we will be posting notes from our panels.

Next, we have some thoughts from our panel “Research Methods in Rhetorical Studies I.” Thanks to Donovan Bisbee for compiling these notes!

Panel Title: Research Methods in Rhetorical Studies I

Sara McKinnon, T.M. Linda Scholz, Lindsay Rose Russell

Each panelist spoke briefly regarding their general processes, specific approaches to their research interests, and then fielded a variety of questions. Below are notes from each of the “prepared” remarks.

Using the methods of rhetorical genre studies and feminist historiography helps to inform research. When working with genres, remember that if all you’re looking at is how the text fits the genre, you’re probably doing it wrong

When thinking about archives, remember that we can both question archives about their omissions, gaps, and particularities and help to build new archives through our work.

Genre plays an important role in structuring individual texts, and it is important to remember this.

When looking at methods in rhetorical studies, start with a question. Then, consider what methodological tools you might productively turn to.

We tend to work quite a lot with text, whether retrieved online, in a book, or in archives. Keep in mind that other methods can work alongside analysis of a text to help us really get at the questions in which we are interested. “Methodological promiscuity” can be really useful.

When using field methods in rhetorical work, we should think about “what’s rhetorical about this project? Where is rhetoric here?”

Qualitative methods teaches us to share our process, and there is a pedagogical function to this. We often struggle with this in rhetorical studies.

We often struggle to access texts and choosing a particular object of study can raise a number of methodological, ethical, and practical problems. For example, studying marginalized women in Latin America requires some flexibility and creativity when access to texts is limited.

We should be open to being critical about traditional western rhetorical theories and methods, not because they are inherently problematic, but because they don’t always work for texts outside of that mold.

We then moved on to questions from the audience

When doing interdisciplinary work, how can one distinguish English, Communication, or Rhetoric from other fields and how might we translate between our field and others we are working with?

- Know your audience. You will probably articulate rhetoric to a lesser degree or in a different way to a Gender/Women’s Studies audience than you would elsewhere.

- Use rhetoric as a theoretical lens while speaking the language of other audiences.

- Remember that things are rhetorical, for bringing rhetoric to the table allows us to see the consequences and biases of texts and practices in a generative way.

What distinguishes a rhetorical approach from, say, approaches in sociology, ethnography, etc?

- One way is to remember rhetoric’s focus on language in the text. This is one way we can find the rhetorical and distinguish the topics in which we’re really interested.

- Historians, for example, might catalogue a moment as an oddity and then move one. However, rhetoricians often want to stop, focus, spend more time studying that oddity.

Once you’ve gone forth and done field work or carried out your research, what are the challenges of representing what you do back to your field? For example, how do you re-situate yourself in rhetoric journals if your work primarily used ethnographic methods?

- Some of the panelists haven’t necessarily struggled with this, while others have.

- One way to approach this is to remember that you are offering methodological models to the field.

What are some good examples of texts that bridge the gap between rhetoric and other fields?

- Raka Shome on Postcolonial theory

- Wanzer on Decoloniality (QJS)

- Some of the canonical texts in rhetorical studies really are doing this sort of work by putting rhetoric in conversation with other fields, methods, and concerns

How do you justify connections that would never happen otherwise, scholarly conversations that would not occur naturally?

- It depends on the audience. Some journals will be more receptive, but keep in mind that the justification of the conversation is a big concern for your article.

Do you ever look back at traditional or more canonical rhetorical texts or ideals and critique them?

- Yes. It is important to remember, however, that rhetorical theory is not the only body of theory that has problems.

-There’s only so much you can do in 25 pages, and you may get to the point where you don’t have to prove yourself/do huge, bold things in every article.

What about dealing with the critique of journal reviewers, how do you choose when to stick to your guns on a critique?

- Try thinking about reviewer feedback as the homework you have to do or may be required to do in order to get your work to where it needs to be.

- A journal editor from the audience suggests that authors should not stay committed to their writing as it first comes out. It will take time to revise and improve your writing.

- Remember that you don’t do all your intellectual work in your brain. A lot of it happens on the page.

- Explaining why you are keeping or not modifying something can be extremely important.

- When cutting, several panelists suggest making reductions in historical context, “what you are saying in five pages can be said in one.”

On Methodological promiscuity, what are some concerns and details involved in such processes? What suggestions do you have for pursuing such work?

- If a graduate student still, take classes in interviewing, focus groups, qualitative methods, and in general build a base of methodologies in which you are competent.

- DO IT! There will be mistakes along the way, and this is part of the process. Read and practice.

- Think carefully, always, about the ethics of the work you are doing. There are almost always questions we have to ask about ethics, representations, member checking, and more.

- If carrying out work that might (or could) lead to advocacy work, be mindful of the politics involved in institutions and how you might be intervening in those.

What advice would you give to you of five years ago?

- Take a lot of methods classes and theory classes.

- Librarians can be really helpful.

- Be flexible. Don’t place anything on a hierarchy.

- IRBs are really important, and they vary by institution. One IRB may be much more amenable to qualitative research while others may want to send you with a 12 page release to talk with someone for five minutes. Start early, and check really carefully to see if you need IRB approval for your work.

- Write fellowship applications where you have to articulate your methods. It will be frustrating and painstaking, but it is immensely helpful for to figure out what your methods are.

Stay tuned for more from the Midwest Winter Workshop!

Tags: , , , ,

On January 18, 2014, the Department of Communication hosted the Midwest Winter Workshop. Over 75 graduate students and faculty in rhetorical studies joined us in Lincoln Hall for a day of professional development panels and paper workshop sessions. Over the next several days, we will be posting notes from our panels.

First, we have some thoughts from our panel “Navigating the Job Market.” Thanks to Jon Stone for compiling these notes!

Panel Title: Navigating the rhetoric job market

Isaac West, Karma Chávez

This hour-long session was conducted as a round-table discussion. It began with a survey of possible questions from those in attendance, after which Professors West and Chávez did their best to touch on as many as possible. Below you’ll find truncated renderings of the questions discussed.

How should I approach the Cover letter and other documents in the application packet?

- The language of a job ad is really important when the university ranks potential candidates. When qualifications are listed as  “required” or  “desirable” in a job ad, they are important cues for the kind of person that the institution is looking for. You need to speak to those in your cover letter. Take it seriously—it’s worth investing the time.

- There are a couple of problems that come up frequently. The generic letter is one—speaking to the specifics of the job ad shows that you’re serious about the job. Tailor the letter to the institution, don’t just send a generic letter and hope to have success getting the job.

- You CAN have a basic template to start with a job letter that can be tailored: Have a different letter/CV for both teaching schools and research schools. It’s about audience—it’s rhetoric!

On the status of your dissertation when you apply for jobs [in Communication]: 

- Your dissertation should be almost done when you’re on the market.

- It’s increasingly futile to go out on the job market when you are not almost or completely done with the dissertation.

- Plan on a month of your summer to get stuff together. It takes a LONG time to get all of the documents together for the job application panel.

- Look at the courses that an institution needs taught and prepare syllabi for those classes. Be ready to show that you know what’s going on at the institution and that you are ready to fill the needs there.

- It’s all about controlling the narrative and being flexible if that narrative begins to shift as you interact with the institution. Be willing to adapt, but know when that adaptation is too much. Don’t over claim who you are and what you are capable of.

Looking for Jobs across disciplines: 

- CRT-NET is a good place to start. For those with interdisciplinary qualifications—it’s a good idea to get on the listservs connected to the other disciplines. The Chronicle.

- The job wiki can be useful if you use it smartly.

Job Talks: 

- Job talks are peculiar to each place—ask for clarification about what a job talk looks like at the institution you’re applying for. Then, follow those guidelines—only speak for 30 minutes if that is the amount of time they give you. You can lose the job if you go long in a situation like that.

- Take the process as seriously as possible. This is a job interview—something that will affect you for many years in the future. 

- You have to recognize that when you are on a campus visit, you are always being interviewed (unless you are in a room all by yourselves). Always be on.

- During the Q & A, don’t assume that it’s adversarial! But, show the group that you’re thinking. You can take a moment to process—but taking offense to a sharp question will shut that whole process down.

-Yes, it is about showing that you can be a good, thoughtful colleague. Someone that you might not team teach a class with, but someone with whom you will share the labor of a department with.

- Job talks are speeches. Don’t forget what you know about speeches. Hourglass structure: how you got interested in it, center in on a case study, then show where you’re going with it.

- The best job talks are the ones that take their topic and make it legible for the audience in all of its potential diversity.

Stay tuned for more from the Midwest Winter Workshop!

Tags: , , , ,

Happy October everyone! The Rhetorical Studies Reading Group is pleased to announce our first session of the fall semester: an RSRG with David Cisneros. Dr. Cisneros is a new addition to the Communication faculty and will be discussing chapters from his upcoming book, The Border Crossed Us: Rhetorics of Borders, Citizenship, and Latina/o Identity. 

We will meet October 17 from 11:30-1 in Lincoln Hall 4007.

We hope to see you there!

Here is a description from Dr. Cisneros of the two chapters:

These are two page proof chapters from my forthcoming book entitled The Border Crossed Us: Rhetorics of Borders, Citizenship, and Latina/o Identity, which is forthcoming with the University of Alabama Press late 2013 or early 2014. Basically, it explores rhetorical struggles over borders of nation, belonging, and citizenship. You can find out more about it here: http://uapress.ua.edu/product/Border-Crossed-Us,5763.aspx 

I chose two of the case study chapters because I thought they would be more interesting than the intro/conclusion and theoretical/conceptual stuff. These are the first and last case studies, respectively, so they’ll give you a sense of the range of the book and include a variety of different rhetorical methodologies that I employ in the broader project. Though they are part of a larger project, I think they can stand alone for the purposes of this meeting. I think these chapters will give you a sense my broader research interests, and during the meeting I can use them to talk about some of the projects I’m working on now.

We hope you all are surviving the end-of-semester. We write bearing news of news of some upcoming events of interest:

Next RSRG Meeting: Thursday, April 25 from 6-7:30. Join us for a special Rhetorical Studies Reading group with guest Christa J. Olson. We will be discussing two pieces by Dr. Olson and you will find them below (along with with some images for reference).

Olson Places to Stand

Olson Chapter 4 Constitutive Visions

Chapter 4 Figures

Dr. Olson will also be delivering a keynote speech the very next day at the Gesa E. Kirsch Graduate Student Symposium, sponsored by the Center for Writing Studies. Her talk will take place at 2pm in GSLIS Building, room 126 and it is entitled “The Persuasions of Travel: Andean Landscapes and U.S. National Vision.”

Here is the description of Dr. Olson’s talk:

The assumption that “America” means “the United States of America” is so ubiquitous—within and beyond the borders of this country—that it hardly occasions comment. And yet, the fact that the U.S. claim to America is unmarked ought to call our attention to the remarkable, long-term, and ongoing rhetorical processes that make that claim possible: the not so hidden work of American exceptionalism. This talk enacts that attention, turning to a relatively early moment in U.S. hemispheric power to track how U.S. publics looking at Latin America learned to see themselves instead of Latin America. It explores how two travelers, the artist Frederic Church and the explorer Hiram Bingham, used visual accounts of their adventures in the Andes to shape U.S. national vision. Church’s spectacular exhibition of his “great painting,” The Heart of the Andes, in 1859 and Bingham’s lavishly illustrated accounts of his 1911 re-discovery of Machu Picchu appeared more than fifty years apart, used quite different media, and circulated through distinct means. Together, however, they speak to how U.S. publics in the first era of U.S. empire came to imagine themselves as [partial] proprietors of the American hemisphere and as the inevitable subjects of inspiring landscapes and impressive cultures. By seeing the Andes through Church and Bingham’s eyes, U.S. audiences learned new national visions appropriate to a period of growing global influence. Ultimately, the talk suggests, examining how those audiences and image makers accomplished the invisibility of Latin America through extensive imagining of it sheds useful light on the subtle, pervasive force of American exceptionalism and the claim to America.

Finally, all rhetoricians of the graduate student variety are invited to attend any or all of the CWS Symposium. The event will last from 8:30 to 4pm in GSLIS Building Room 126 and will feature presentations of graduate student works in progress. RSVP to singh53@illinois.edu if you are interested in attending!

Hope to see you at any or all of these great events!

Rohini, Jon, Paul, and Katie

Tags: , , , ,

On Monday, graduate students from the RSA Chapter at the University of Illinois gathered again in Lincoln Hall to participate in the second session of the RSA Webinar on Archival Research organized by Debra Hawhee and Jack Selzer over at Penn State.

Session 2 featured Jordynn Jack as well as fellow Illini Ned O’Gorman. The theme of the discussion was “The Archive as Heuristic.” Some of my notes follow below.

O’Gorman and Jack presented a fascinating way of looking at the archives. Rather than seeing the archive as a repository of information to be mined, O’Gorman and Jack considered what it would mean to think of the archive as a source of invention. Thinking of the archive in this way gets at the ways in which the archive often presents us with surprising artifacts that lead us to more questions. O’Gorman described this as the practice of finding “provocations” within the archives. These provocations present us with fundamental questions that lead to further inquiry.

Sometimes, those artifacts in the archive that provoke us lead us outside of the archive to answer the questions they raise.

Thus, both scholars discussed the ways in which archival research gives us opportunities for “undirected research” and the ability to be surprised by what we find. As researchers, we should be open to these provocations and see where they lead us. Seeing the archive as heuristic keeps us open and ready to embrace these opportunities.

The discussion was lively and fascinating, as always. Thanks to Rohini Singh for reserving the room and the equipment, thanks to Dr. O’Gorman and Dr. Jack for sharing their insights, and thanks to Debra Hawhee and Jack Selzer for bringing all of us into these discussions!

The next “Archival Encounters” webinar will take place on March 25th, and will examine the question of “Reading Archival Documents” with Ann George and Dave Tell.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.