Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Critical autoethnography reveals the importance of relational critique in discourse studies, suggesting new pathways for scholarship.
Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) faces three vulnerabilities: Eurocentric canons, computational reductionism, and rhetorical decolonization. This article offers a retrospective critical autoethnographic intervention that reimagines CDS as relational practice. Writing as a Filipino communication scholar, I revisit my trajectory—from textbook encounters with multimodal CDA to the theorization of trust cultures and relational sovereignties—to show how scholarly becoming generates theory. From this emerge four provocations: beyond toolkits, beyond textbooks, beyond derivative Souths, and toward ambivalence and hope. I clarify relational critique as an approach that treats relationality as the ontological ground of critique rather than a contextual supplement. I also specify the retrospective autoethnographic materials and analytic stance guiding this inquiry. Rather than rejecting toolkits, I argue for decentering toolkit-centrism by situating methods as secondary to the theorization of social problems. Finally, I outline a relational agenda that bridges interpretive inquiry with emerging computational practices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Karl Patrick R. Mendoza (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: