Continuing the Conversation on "What Constitutes Publishable Rhetorical Criticism?": A Response

By Jordan, John W.; Olson, Kathryn M. et al. | Communication Studies, Fall 2003 | Go to article overview

Continuing the Conversation on "What Constitutes Publishable Rhetorical Criticism?": A Response


Jordan, John W., Olson, Kathryn M., Goldzwig, Steven R., Communication Studies


The motivation behind this conversation about what constitutes publishable rhetorical Scholarship--and how reviewers seek to recognize it--stems from a fundamental, albeit largely unintentional, omission in the constitutive discourse. For all the attention and instruction given to the question of what constitutes a publishable essay, the role of the reviewers rarely enters the discussion even though their influence on the publishing process is significant. Except in the rarest of cases, it is likely that any given article found in one of our professional journals is, at least in some part, influenced by the reviewers' comments. It bears their imprint, whether directly in language or ideologically by having received their approval. In this sense, a reviewer is not just the critic for a particular submission, but also plays a strategic role as a collaborator on the project. Considering reviewers in this light better enables us to appreciate the commentary provided by this issue's five contributors and to proceed in our task as respondents to their insights. As the previous essays have pointed out, the question of what reviewers do and how they go about doing it is both understated and essential, and we agree that the role of the reviewer needs more attention in our discussions about professional scholarship.

Of course, recognizing this need in our professional discourse is much easier than satisfying it. As this issue's contributors demonstrate, the question of reviewership can never be answered definitively, but can only emerge as a conversation that demands much of its participants. Indeed, when we participate in the academic publishing process--whether as author, reviewer, or editor--we necessarily enter into a conversation, the end product of which may be a published essay offered for the general consideration of others in the field. Obviously, this conversation benefits from its members adopting a reflective, critical stance. But the questions raised by such a stance are difficult because they ask us each to consider how we strive to achieve some balance between our personal biases and our professional obligations. This negotiation may constitute, to borrow from Barry Brummett's language, an additional series of "double binds" in the reviewing process. As reviewers, we are asked to contemplate what a given manuscript may mean for us both as experts in a particular area of study, but also as generalists in the field. This is a difficult position to negotiate and makes commenting on how to do it all the more difficult--and important.

As we write this response, we are mindful of Rod Hart's (1976) words of caution, penned more than twenty-five years ago: "The refusal by any field of inquiry to launch periodic, self-reflective examinations is surely a very special kind of arrogance" (p. 70). In order to avoid a little arrogance of our own, let us suggest from the outset that what we offer here is merely one response to the process of criticism and critical responsibility. We offer it as our contribution to the mix. We are grateful for the opportunity to insert our thoughts into this conversation. By so doing, we hope to engage an important ongoing disciplinary dialectic. We know in advance that total agreement is both impossible and unnecessary. In our view, participation is the sine qua non. Our purpose here is not to provide definitive instruction on what constitutes publishable rhetorical scholarship and how to critique it. We feel that this issue's contributors have provided much to think about along these lines, and our task is not to whittle down their statements into a final set of criteria for "good reviewing." We agree with them that the key to good reviewing lies with people and arguments more than with rules and formulas. We see this response as an opportunity both to explicate some ideas from the general discussion and throw in our own ideas for consideration. Our response will track those areas we find most intriguing with respect to the present conversation. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Continuing the Conversation on "What Constitutes Publishable Rhetorical Criticism?": A Response
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.