![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Michelle Scollo for her thoughtful comments on an earlier draft and Kirt Wilson for his generous feedback on this essay.
Notes
1. Hadley Neighbors for Sustainable Development, January 10, 2006, http://www.hadleyneighbors.org/
2. The City Repair Project, retrieved January 10, 2006, http://www.cityrepair.org/index.html
3. Michael Schudson, “Introduction: All Politics is Local, Some Local Politics is Personal,” The Communication Review 3 (1999): http://communication.ucsd.edu/commreview/tcr_vol3.3.html#schudson
4. See Robert Asen and Daniel C. Boruwer, eds., Counterpublics and the State (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001); Donal Carbaugh, Situating Selves: The Communication of Social Identities in American Scenes (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996); Gerard A. Hauser, Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1999); Tamar Katriel, Communal Webs: Communication and Culture in Contemporary Israel (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991); Tarla Rai Peterson, Sharing the Earth: The Rhetoric of Sustainable Development (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997). For examples of article length studies, see Karen Tracy and Aaron Dimock, “Meetings: Discursive Sites for Building and Fragmenting Community,” Communication Yearbook 28, ed. Pamela J. Kabfleisch (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004), 127–165; Karen Tracy and Heidi Muller, “Diagnosing a School Board's Interactional Trouble: Theorizing Problem Formulation,” Communication Theory, 11 (2001): 84–104; Karen Tracy and Christina Standerfer, “Selecting a School Superintendent: Interactional Sensitivities in the Deliberative Process,” Group Communication in Context: Studies of Bona Fide Groups, ed. Lawrence R. Frey (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003), 109–134; and Karen Tracy and Catherine Ashcraft, “Crafting Policies about Controversial Values: How Wording Disputes Manage a Group Dilemma,” Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29 (2001): 297–316.
5. Schudson, n.p.
6. For example, John Stewart and Karen Zediker, Practically Theorizing Theory and Practice, paper presented at the Practical Theory, Public Participation, and Community Conference (Waco, TX: Baylor University, January 27–29, 2000); Robert T. Craig, “Communication as a Practical Discipline,” in Rethinking Communication; Volume 1: Paradigm Issues, ed. B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. J. O'Keefe, and E. Wartella (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989), 97–122; Vernon Cronen, Practical Theory and a Naturalistic Account of Inquiry, paper presented at the Practical Theory, Public Participation, and Community Conference (Waco, TX: Baylor University, January 27–29, 2000); Bent Flyvbjerg, “Phronetic Planning Research: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections,” Planning Theory and Practice 5 (2004): 283–306.
7. Robert Asen, “A Discourse Theory of Citizenship,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90 (2004): 189–211.
8. Thomas B. Farrell, Norms of Rhetorical Culture (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993).
9. Jane Mansbridge, Beyond Adversarial Democracy (New York: Basic, 1980).
10. Michael Warner, Publics and Counterpublics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002).
11. Mansbridge, 139.
12. Joseph Francis Zimmerman, The New England Town Meeting: Democracy in Action (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999).
13. See the “Unexpurgated Version” at http://www.uvm.edu/∼fbryan/realdemocracy.html
14. Samuel McCormick, “Earning One's Inheritance: Rhetorical Criticism, Everyday Talk, and the Analysis of Public Discourse,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 89 (2003): 126.
15. Bent Flyvbjerg, Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again, trans. Steven Sampson (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
16. Timothy Gibson, “Covering the World-Class Downtown: Seattle's Local Media and the Politics of Urban Redevelopment,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 21 (2004): 283–304.
17. Flyvbjerg, “Phronetic Planning,” 294.
18. Flyvbjerg, “Phronetic Planning,” 289.
19. Christopher Eisenhart, “The Humanist Scholar as Public Expert,” Written Communication 3 (2006): 150–72.
20. Michael Huspek and Kathleen K. Kendall, “On Withholding Political Voice: An Analysis of the Political Vocabulary of a ‘Nonpolitical’ Speech Community,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 77 (1991): 1–19.
21. Erving Goffman, The Presentation of self in Everyday Life (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959).
22. Dell Hymes, Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974), 55.
23. Nancy Fraser, “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy,” in Exploring Rhetorical Theory: A Reader, ed. Christine Harold and Stephen H. Brown (State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press 2002).
24. Flyvbjerg, “Phronetic Planning,” 293.
25. Benedetto Fontana, Cary J. Nederman, and Gary Remer, Talking Democracy: Historical Perspectives on Rhetoric and Democracy (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004), 19.
26. Or as Flyvbjerg would say, “phronetic,” perhaps related to “productive criticism” (Ivie), or “grounded” (Craig) or practical theories (Cronen). Robert L. Ivie, “Productive Criticism Then and Now,” American Journal of Communication 4 (2001): 1–4.
27. Kent Ono and John Sloop, “The Critique of Vernacular Discourse,” Communication Monographs 62 (1995): 40.
28. For example, Donal Carbaugh, “The Critical Voice in Ethnography of Communication Research,” Research on Language and Social Interaction 23 (1989/1990): 261–82.