CFP: After the Crisis: Make, Do, and Mend and/as Rhetoric of Science

[ten grrl]

Dear Colleagues,


We are seeking original contributions to an edited collection on how
compounding political, environmental, health, and disciplinary crises have
affected the theory and practice of the rhetorics of science (broadly
conceived). Building on the recent RSQ Special Issue, “Rhetoric of Science
in (Times of) Crisis <https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rrsq20/55/3>,” this
collection positions “crisis” as both an increasingly consequential keyword
in and an exigence for rhetorical scholarship into the professional and
public lives of science. Following critical studies of the term (Koselleck,
Roitman, Masco, Cheng, et al.), we approach the designator “crisis” as both
a description of periods marked by uncertainty and controversy as well as a
powerful speech act that conjures forth particular judgments, evaluations,
and responses.

Coming from the Greek krinô—meaning to separate, choose, or decide—the
etymological history of crisis is one marked by kairotic attunement and
decisive action. For instance, while everyday usage now often posits crisis
as a “protracted and potentially persistent state of ailment and demise,”
in Hippocratic medical thought, the term crisis captured the tipping point
of a disease, the critical moment when life-and-death decisions were made
(Roitman, 16). Regardless of its historical use, what has remained
consistent is the fact that the concept of “crisis” is itself rhetorical
insofar as it opens opportunities for reflecting on past ways of knowing,
strategizing alternative ways of making meaning, and charting new horizons
for coordinating collective action. What can we make or do? How can we heal
and mend during and after a crisis?


Our collection aims to localize this multifaceted understanding of crisis
to the domains of scientific rhetoric and the rhetoric of science. It asks
how crises in scientific knowledge production inform and affect crises in
public apprehensions of science. Consider, for example, how the crisis in
factuality embodied in the term “alternative facts” in 2017 has widened and
deepened in recent months. On one level, the crisis of “alternative facts”
captures a public rhetorical situation that has had serious consequences
for science, technology, and medicine insofar as it destabilizes public
trust in dependable and credible information. Consequently, scientific
institutions and scientists themselves have become the targets of
increasingly vitriolic attacks. At another level, however, in undermining
the public esteem of science, the rhetoric of “alternative facts” has also
revealed a crisis in scientific knowledge production itself by drawing
attention to compounding crises concerning the verifiability and
replicability of scientific research (Fahnestock). This is just one example
of the many ways in which “crisis” manufactures (Ceccarelli) and energizes
“rhetorical controversies” that “dislocate and disorient” dominant
discursive and material systems (Phillips, 494, emphasis in original).


Ultimately, we are interested in gathering essays that both continue and
complicate the work begun in “The Rhetoric of Science in (Times of) Crisis”
special issue. There, we focused on crises in the sciences as well as on
the notion of a crisis in the rhetoric of science itself. The articles in
this issue employed a rhetorical lens to address topics such as abortion
(DeTora), reactionary COVID-19 movements (Mitchell), crises in theoretical
physics (Keeling & Kishimoto), sustainability (Rademaekers), ecology
(Sackey), and social media health influencers (Koerber & Al-Shawaf), among
others. However, this issue was conceived and largely written before the
current U.S. administration took power and proceeded with an unprecedented,
systematic assault on science, medicine, public health, and the
institutions that safeguard and sustain them.


Therefore, the collection we are now envisioning is prompted by emerging
rhetorical exigencies and seeks work that not only historicizes, critiques,
and analyzes our current moment but also envisions ways to (re)build the
bonds connecting scientific, general, and political publics. We want to ask
what it might mean to imagine new, more just futures for scientific
rhetoric and the rhetoric of science, as well as how rhetoricians might
collaborate with diverse stakeholders to cultivate more balanced, sober,
informed, and intersectional views of science that work for—not
against—local, national, and global interests.


To this end, we imagine a tripartite structure for our collection, with
essays responding to one or more of the following themes as they connect
with constructive visions and actions for the future. We are especially
interested in work that considers the ebb and flow of phronesis, techne,
and/or praxis during and after times of crisis:

   Make

   Do

   Mend

Authors are encouraged to take a creative approach to these themes in their
contributions. Furthermore, given our desire to chart pathways for building
coalitions among publics affected by science, we are especially interested
in soliciting collaborative work, as well as theoretical and practical
responses to contemporary scientific crises. Final chapters should range
between 5,000–7,000 words (including references).


Bloomsbury Academic has expressed interest in this collection, so we
anticipate a quick response time once we collect submissions and turn in
our proposal. To stay on schedule, we ask that 300-word abstracts be sent to
crisis.rhet...@gmail.com no later than end-of-day on November 3,
2025. Please include your name(s), institutional affiliations, and emails
for all authors in your submission.


Our best,
Cristina Hanganu-Bresch (St. Joseph’s University), Lisa DeTora (Hofstra
University), and Ryan Mitchell (SUNY Stony Brook)


Important Information

Contact: crisis.rhet...@gmail.com

Abstracts due: November 3, 2025



*Ryan Mitchell, *Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Writing & Rhetoric
Stony Brook University
ryan.w....@stonybrook.edu

[category cfp]