Rhetorical Audience Studies and Reception of Rhetoric by Jens E. Kjeldsen

Author:Jens E. Kjeldsen
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Springer International Publishing, Cham

Adjustment to the Traditional Use of the Method

As appears from the above studies, several adjustments to the classical version of protocol analysis are made when rhetorical scholars use the method.

First, classical think-aloud protocols do not typically involve reading a text, but rather a task performance, for example, playing chess, building Lego construction or writing an essay. In the rhetorical studies using protocol analysis , the respondent reads (broadly defined as read, hear or watch) a text (also broadly defined as both written and oral texts, including oral texts with or without visuals—as well as text fragments constructed by the reader) and thinks aloud along the way. In this way, audiences react to the text, sharing whatever comes to mind during the reading process, as is also the case in Christian Kock’s chapter in this book on the reception of classical music. Second, the purpose is different. In the classical use of protocol analysis , the researcher describes a thinking or problem-solving process, whereas in rhetorical scholarship the method can be used for several purposes, for example, critical evaluation of texts and genres (Lund 2003; Schryer 2002), understanding ethos construction (Hoff-Clausen 2007; Sørensen 2016) or understanding reactions to a discursive audience construction in a text or a genre as presented in the case study in this chapter. In rhetorical studies, think-aloud readings offer a concurrent reaction from selected audiences that can be used as a valuable insight in the critical investigation of the rhetoric and its impact. Third, for Ericsson and Simon, the traditional use of the method combining think-aloud reading with a qualitative interview would be a violation of the method leading to non-valid behavioural data. In the traditional use, the researcher is placed out of sight, not asking the informant to elaborate, because this will only compromise the validity of the verbal report. This is not the case in humanistic scholarship interested in the interpretation of meaning and construction of social worlds. In this context, qualitative conversations are accepted as research—as the social production of knowledge. Fourth, in classical think-aloud protocols, the respondent is told only to report, not to analyse, explain or interpret, while when used in rhetorical scholarship, the respondent is not restricted in this way, but told to verbalize whatever comes into mind and talk about it with the interviewer. When subsequently using these empirical texts, the critic should consider the texts as reactions that are to be interpreted just as the primary texts. Fifth and last, the methodological considerations are significantly different from the classical use. As mentioned above, Ericsson and Simon are primarily concerned with the “validity-issue” and “reactive-effects issue,” while the methodological concerns in rhetorical scholarship are comparable to those of a qualitative interview. When conducting think-aloud readings of written or oral texts, a range of choices are influencing the investigation: selecting text(s), selecting readers (who, how many, single or in focus groups), choosing the setting (at university, natural surroundings), making marks/stops in the texts as an invitation to verbalize reactions (how many,

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.