Exploring the History and Philosophical Underpinnings of Discourse Analysis

Chapter 5 Discourse analysis Le Greco M. (2014). In: Mills J and Birks M (eds) Qualitative methodologies: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications

Learning objectives Navigate the multi-disciplinary and sometimes fragmented history of analyzing discourse Distinguish between the technical and situated sides of discourse analysis Develop research questions and protocols for analyzing discourses and discursive practices Identify different techniques of gathering discursive data for micro, meso and/or macro levels of analysis Select appropriate venues for sharing and distributing the results of research studies that use discourse analysis

History of the methodology Links to rhetoric, structuralism, interpretivism and critical theory Used to study language through written and spoken words Discourse analysis is a term used to describe various research techniques for studying everything from local language practices to larger systems of socially constructed meaning

History of the methodology First handbook on discourse analysis published in 1985 Covered topics such as dialogue, conversation, discourse analysis as a cross-discipline and dimensions of context

History of the methodology Scholars who identify as doing discourse analysis are interested in: some form of language, usually talk and text some position on context, either the need to bracket it out or make it part of the analysis some use of discourse analysis as a methodological approach to make claims about interpretive and, or, critical theories

Philosophical underpinnings Concerns that the term was becoming a catch-all concept to describe any study that deals with language, dialogue and text More precise definitions required In a very basic sense, discourse is talk and text

Philosophical underpinnings Talk is framed as naturally occurring conversation and dialogue that is not influenced by a researcher (Tracy and Mirivel, 2009) Texts are informal or formal written accounts of interaction Discourse that favors local interactions is characterized as micro-level discourse

Philosophical underpinnings Macro-level discourse frames discourses as indicative of broader social patterns and practices For example, discourses of nutritionism (Rapoport, 2003) are evident in advertising strategies and public health policies Positioned as enduring patterns of talk and text across contexts

Philosophical underpinnings Meso-level discoursetreats discourse as instances of talk and text that connect micro and macro discourses (Alvesson and Karreman, 2000) Provides an opportunity to focus on the concept of discourses as the routine uses of talk and text to coordinate actions across contexts (LeGreco, 2012; LeGreco and Tracy, 2009)

Philosophical underpinnings Useful approach to address questions related to identity, language, social relationships and power Useful methodology for focusing on the interaction of language in phenomena such as the social construction of lived experiences and power relations in organizations

Positioning the researcher Depends on how the researcher works with talk and, or, text (Chilton and Schaffner, 2002; Hodge and McHoul, 1992) For example, researchers focusing on talk at the micro-level often position themselves as unobtrusively as possible, especially during data collection

Positioning the researcher Researchers who emphasize text over talk in their research design position themselves at a distance from the origination and production of the text Researchers who study both text and talk , especially across micro, meso & macro discourses take greater liberties with how they position themselves

Aligning philosophy and methodology with purpose Discourse analysis includes: Technical or situated discourse analysis (DA) Technical DA follows a strict code of methodological practice comprising five key components: 1. Recording interaction 2. Transcribing the tape 3. Repeated study of the tape 4. Formulating claims about the conversational moves, structures and strategies demonstrated in the interaction 5. Building an argument with transcript excerpts that are analyzed

Aligning philosophy and methodology with purpose Situated DA: Suggests that the way we use words is context bound Focuses on what constitutes a context, what organizes contexts across micro, meso & macro levels and what situates a discourse

Aligning philosophy and methodology with purpose Different decision processes according to researcher s approach to technical or situated elements within study Technical DA favors micro-instances of discourse without researcher facilitation Situated DA favors embodied and participatory methods that draw connections across contexts

Data generation and collection Methods almost exclusively qualitative May include: recordings of naturally occurring speech, interviews, observations, relevant texts Preference is for some form of talk in social settings Need to be unobtrusive so as to minimize researcher influence on interaction between participants Ensure ethical processes are used to capture actual speech

Data generation and collection In situated DA discourse tracing offers a method for studying multi-level discursive practices from critical, participatory, and post-structural traditions (LeGreco and Tracy, 2009) Generally involves large data sets to support claims about how discourses get situated Using discourse tracing chronologically orders data to recognize that discourses have a history

Analysis of data Analysis process may look different depending on whether you are doing technical DA or situated discourse tracing Technical DA more likely to involve repeated study of recordings and formulation of claims about conversational moves, structures and strategies used in interactions Formulation of claims may used grounded theory methods for analysis data i.e. open and axial coding

Analysis of data Situated DA tracing uses structured-focused comparison (George, 1979) Involves developing i.e. philosophical or practical questions that a researcher asks of their data Questions are applied across a chronically ordered data set to trace connections between different levels of discourse

Quality and rigour Reflexivity and transferability Not unique to discourse analysis Reflexivity reflecting on data to consider theoretical & practical implications, ethical contributions, role of researcher Transferability the ability to apply research findings in other contexts

Quality and rigour Reflection about rigour in discourse analysis List of quality criteria adapted specifically to both technical and situated discourse analysis outlined in table on next slide

Quality and rigour Criteria Explanation Worthy topic select a timely and significant topic that addresses micro, meso, and/or macro levels of discourse Rich rigor sufficient and appropriate samples of talk and text, use of concepts like discursive practices, and data analysis techniques to make claims about discourse Sincerity self-reflexivity and transparency about choices made regarding the technical and situated sides of discourse analysis Credibility use of thick descriptions, excerpts from recorded interactions, and triangulation of data to show rather than tell how discourses operate Resonance evocative representations of findings and transferable implications that show how discourses connect across contexts Significant contribution evocative representations of findings and transferable implications that show how discourses connect across contexts Ethical follows appropriate procedures (like human subjects) and culturally-sensitive ethics throughout the research process Meaningful coherence final products and reports reflect what the study set out to accomplish, and researchers connect the goals of their study with their choices of literature, research questions, methods, and evidence

Presentation and dissemination of findings Peer-reviewed journals Communicating research findings to participants and the wider community Community forums Share information through local broadcasts and print media

Presentation and dissemination of findings Develop culturally appropriate communication and promotion materials Focused reflection (Mirivel, 2006); researchers work with students, participants, lay experts & community members to review audio and video recordings

Summary History, meaning and use of discourse analysis Characteristics of technical and situational discourse analysis Criteria for ensuring quality and rigor Ways of presenting and disseminating findings

References Alvesson M and Karreman D. (2000) Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations 53: 1125-1149. Chilton P and Sch ffner C. (2002) Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. George A. (1979) Case studies and theory development: The method of structured, focused comparison, New York: Free Press. Hodge B and McHoul A. (1992) The politics of text and commentary. Textual practice 2: 189-209. LeGreco M. (2012) Working with policy: Restructuring healthy eating practices and the Circuit of Policy Communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research 40: 44-64. LeGreco M and Tracy S. (2009) Discourse tracing as qualitative practice. Qualitative Inquiry 15: 1516-1543. Mirivel JC. (2006) Getting nipped and tucked through talk: A communication take on cosmetic surgery: University of Colorado at Boulder. Rapoport L. (2003) How we eat: Appetite, culture, and the psychology of food, Toronto: ECW Press. Tracy K and Mirivel JC. (2009) Discourse analysis: The practice and practical value of taping, transcribing, and analysing talk. In: Frey L and Cissna K (eds) Routledge Handbook of Applied Communication Research. New York: Routledge, 153-177.