Points from Rhetorica

I found that Schell’s article in Rhetorica in Motion started to help me understand feminist methodology. I found Kirsch’s principles of feminist research very similar to principles I want to uphold in my own research. Some of them I have modified for my own needs (in green) :

• ask questions which acknowledge and validate women’s (or other marginalized groups) experiences;
• collaborate with participants as much as possible so that growing and learning can be mutually beneficial, interactive and cooperative;
• analyze how social, historical, and cultural factors shape the research site as well as participants’ goals, values, and experiences
• analyze how the researchers’ identity, experience, training and theoretical framework shape the research agenda, data analysis, and findings;
• correct and androcentric norms by calling into question what has been considered ‘normal’ and what has been regarded as ‘deviant’ (OR question previous social norms as it relates to marginalized groups; how these norms have changed; and critically reflect areas of possible growth) 
• take responsibility for the representations of others in research reports by assign probable and actual effects on different audiences; and
• acknowledge the limitations of and contradictions inherent in research data as well as alternative interpretations of that data.
  • (Kirsch, 1999, 4-5)

I think that Kirsch has most of it together — I just needed to tweak a few things to update it to bring feminism into more than just a woman/man topic (which I believe Schell brings up as well). I believe it made sense that the next chapter, Refiguring Rhetorica,  also made the rhetorical point of linking other marginalized groups into feminist studies, such as disability studies. Dolmage and Lewiechi-Wilson argument help open the door and pave the way for other groups to be welcomed into the feminist umbrella. I really appreciated how this article really challenged “normalcy” — again referencing one of Kirsch’s principles. I found that a lot of their article resonated with arguments I have heard with body studies, and reframing what a “normal” or healthy body is. I like that these authors provided examples of ways we can reframe and change the field, such as by looking at language and simply not defining a person on this one identity, but opening up to the idea of intersectionality and all the identities a person possesses.

When I have been reading these chapters, I have found myself drawn to the parts of intersectionality and ethnographers. For example, Crawford’s piece regarding narrating Vietnam was interesting, but I was wishing to see more of the voices of the women of HCM city presented; I do realize her point in this piece was not necessarily to focus on solely the voices. I believe that each of the authors have done a great job at presenting how this field is evolving and how it intersects into more research than we initially believe.