As English majors we often don't pause to ponder what research methods are being used within our field. Often times we just assume that it is in the same style as how we do research papers, a lot of time spent in the library. Although this is one option of research it is far from the only way research is done. In Feminist Rhetorical Practices Jacqueline Jones Royster and Gesa E. Kirsch start to examine new ways of doing research, especially in order to find and shift through the works of feminist rhetors. By stressing the use of "critical imagination, strategic contemplation, social circulation, and globalization" they are combining research methods from a variety of fields that apply to their specific discipline. It is crucial to understand how their research is being done in order to appreciate it and enable future generations to continue.
More than the way research is getting done, it is important to understand why research is getting done. Royster and Gesa bring up the nature of values describing their research as, "the notion that there is indeed value to be recognized and appreciated in the lives, words, participation, leadership and legacies of women" (18). This value shapes their research as well as establishes a place for it in the rhetorical tradition. If there was no specific obligation to do this research then it could easily be overlooked but it is important, and because it is so new it is vastly exciting. I am glad we, as English majors, are finally getting exposed to this sort of knowledge (and how to find it).
Feminist Rhetorical Practices does indeed seem to “topple” many conventions of the field of rhetoric. In the same way, the authors’ research — in addition to the methods and mission of this research — is presented a little differently than how I often expect to see things explained in an academic text. (Or, to give a more specific example, it is presented differently than I would expect to see in a Writing Studies article. Writing Studies does not exactly equal Rhetoric per se, but it’s the closest subject I am acquainted with which bears a resemblance.)
ReplyDeleteI suppose the described research in this book simply seems more "personal..."
Also, after how dense some of the previous articles have been, I found the straightforward style of this book something of a relief. At least I know I know what Gesa and Jackie are talking about.