Grounded Theory, Discourse Analysis and Hermeneutics

Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 17

Grounded theory, discourse

analysis and hermeneutics

Part Two – Discourse Analysis


ERPM001 Interpretive Methodologies
Dr Alexandra Allan
A brief history and outline...

A whole family of methodological


techniques

Discursive
Conversation psychology
analysis
Discourse
Foucauldian
analysis Critical
discourse
discourse
analysis
analysis
A brief history and outline...
Language as a vehicle for information transfer between people and as a set of
symbols for conveying information

Ludwig Wittgenstein J.L. Austin

Language is not a Language as social and


medium that reflects dynamic. Contrastive
the world. Language and performative
Language as a utterances
as a tool box.
dynamic,
constructive and
constitutive
medium
What is discourse analysis?

• The analysis of language use in itself

• Involves the examination of all types of verbal


and textual materials – spoken and written
accounts, letters, journals, newspaper reports,
etc.

• The aim is to explore the way discourse is


constructed and to explore the functions
served by particular constructions
What is discourse analysis?

• Discourse: ‘ a particular way of talking


about and understanding the world’

• Language is structured according to


different patterns that people’s
utterances follow when they take part in
social life

• Discourse analysis explores these


patterns
What it is not...

• The point is not to get behind the discourse or


to find out what people really mean

• It cannot be used with all kinds of theoretical


frameworks

• It is not just an approach to analysis

• It is not just one approach


Theoretical underpinnings

Saussure and
structuralism
The meaning we attach to words is not
inherent to them but a result of social
conventions where we connect meanings
with certain sounds, e.g. dog.

Post-structuralism

Signs do not derive their meaning


through relations to relaity but it rejects
the idea that language is stable and
unchangeable
Theoretical underpinnings

‘Language, then, is not merely a channel through which


underlying mental states and behaviour or facts about
the world are communicated. On the contrary,
language is a ‘machine’ that generates, and as a result
constitutes, the social world. This also extends to the
constitution of social identities and social relations. It
means that changes in discourse are a means by
which the social world is changed. Struggles at the
discursive level take part in changing, as well as
reproducing social reality’

Phillips and Jorgensen


Some key principles...

• Language is not a reflection of a pre-existing reality

• Language is structured in patterns of discourses –


there is not just one general system of meaning but
series of discourse

• These discursive patterns are maintained and


transformed in discursive practices

• The maintenance and transformation of patterns


should therefore be explored through analysis in
specific contexts in which language is in action
Some different approaches...
1) Discursive psychology – work on the relationship
between language and inner mental entities or
processes. Used to describe action orientation of
discourse.

2) Critical discourse analysis – concerned to analyse


how social and political inequalities are manifest in
discourse. An overt political stance drawing heavily
on linguistics.

3) Foucauldian discourse analysis – Clear political intent


to focus on power relations. A focus on how
discourses facilitate what can be said, by whom,
where and when.
Critical discourse analysis

1. The character of social and cultural processes in


partly linguistic-discursive

2. Discourse is both constitutive and constituted

3. Language should be empirically analysed within its


social context

4. Discourses function ideologically

5. Critical research
Critical discourse analysis

An interdisciplinary perspective:

1) Detailed textual analysis with a field of linguistics


(Halliday – functional grammar)

2) Macro sociological analysis of social practice


(Foucault – power relations)

3) Micro-sociological interpretative tradition


(ethnomethodology and conversation analysis)
Fairclough’s three-dimensional model for
critical discourse analysis
• Every instance of language use is
a communicative event consisting of
three dimensions:

Text production •Text


•Discursive practice
•Social practice

• All three dimensions need to be


covered in discourse analysis:

Text •The linguistic feature of the


text
Text consumption •The processes relating to the
proiduction and consumption of
Discursive practice the text
•The wider social practice to
Social practice which the communicative event
belongs
An example of critical discourse analysis
in research practice

1. Choice of research problem

2. Formulation of research questions

3. Choice of material

4. Transcription
An example of critical discourse analysis in
research practice
5. Analysis - completed at three levels though not as seperate
processes:

• Discourse: How texts are produced and consumed. E.g. what


kinds of processes does a text go through before it is printed? Can
an intertextual chain be traced? How do readers understand text?

• Text: detailed analysis of the linguistic characteristics using tools


like interactional control, ethos, metaphors, wording and
grammar. E.g. transivity and modality

• Social practice: examining the broader social practice of these


dimensions, e.g. mapping the non-discursive that constitute the
wider context of the discursive practice
An example of critical discourse analysis
in research practice

1. Choice of research problem

2. Formulation of research questions

3. Choice of material

4. Transcription

5. Analysis

6. Results
Activity
Read through the two examples of texts that I have provided for you and try
to answer the following questions:

1. Can you identify aspects of interdiscursivity and intertextuality


in this text?
(I.e. What different discourses are drawn on in the text and what texts
might these texts draw on?)

2. How is the text connected with subjects and objects?


(I.e. How do the words used represent the reader and the institution
itself? What evidence can you find for this?)

3. What conclusions could you draw about the discourses being


drawn on in these texts?
(I.e. What do they tell us about universities? How could they be related
to wider social theory to make more sense?)

You might also like