Beyond toolkits: Critical autoethnography and a relational agenda for discourse studies in media and communication

Karl Patrick R. Mendoza

Discourse & Communication2026https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813261420507article
ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

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.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813261420507

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{karl2026,
  title        = {{Beyond toolkits: Critical autoethnography and a relational agenda for discourse studies in media and communication}},
  author       = {Karl Patrick R. Mendoza},
  journal      = {Discourse & Communication},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813261420507},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Beyond toolkits: Critical autoethnography and a relational agenda for discourse studies in media and communication

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.