Scott Response

Response 

J. Blake Scott

In addition to the questions you posed at the end of your section response, what are a couple of discussion questions you might draft for the chapters in your section? (Think advanced undergraduates or early graduate students)

  • What does it mean to say that representations of RHM stakeholders configure, rather than simply signify, forms of experience?
  • What are some advantages to thinking of our research practices, including theorizing, as performatively participating in the phenomena we study?
  • What are the limitations of “studying online spaces as mediation or as spaces we can observe from a safe distance” in RHM research?

What is the most important idea in your (response, intro, afterword) that you would want to make sure folks know?

  • An analytic of performativity, which focuses on how rhetorical and other entities materialize rather than what they represent and mean, could offer new insights about the rhetorical phenomena we study and the ways we study them.

What makes RHM an interesting area of scholarly inquiry in both theory and/or practice? (In other words, what makes us so cool?

  • The “methodological mutability” of our research, which comes out of our responsive attentiveness to both the phenomena we study and the materializing effects of our own research practices.

Is there anything that you want those new to the field to know about RHM?

  • RHM research can both (and even simultaneously) examine the meaning-making functions and effects of rhetorical constructions or representations and their performative, materializing roles in complex inscription-incorporation feedback loops.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email