Discourse analysis

• Considerations:
– outline the theoretical background to discourse
analysis.
– consider the different forms of discourse
analysis in psychology today.
– introduce two forms in detail: discursive
psychology and Foucauldian discourse
analysis.
– examine the strengths and weaknesses of
these approaches.
Introduction
• A paradigm shift?
• Discourse: spoken and written
communication and more.
• Social constructionist.
• Different approaches:
– Discursive psychology.
– Foucauldian discourse analysis.
The turn to language
• Harré & Gillet (1994) - a new paradigm.
• Rejection of cognitive approach:
– Objects existing independently of thought.
• Language:
– Does things (action-oriented).
– Creates objects themselves (constitutes
subjectivity).
• Fox hunting - what is hunting?
Theoretical divergences
• Discursive psychology:
– Wittgenstein.
– Austin - speech act theory.
– Focus on discourse practices.

• Foucauldian discourse analysis:

– Foucault.
– Discursive resources.
Discursive psychology
• Potter & Wetherell (1987) Discourse and
Social Psychology.
• Direct challenge to dominant cognitive
model in social psychology.
• Radical alternative drawing on philosophy
of Wittgenstein and Austin.
• A paradigm shift?
• Dominant approach to DA in U.K. today.
Wittgenstein
• Language as a toolkit:
– Rather than language in terms of reference
and internal logic.
• Language games:
– Implicit rules.
– DP notion of interpretative repertoire.
• Private language argument:
– Private language not possible - language
always a public social event.
Austin - speech act theory
• Performative: utterances that do things.
– Keep off the grass.
• Constative: utterances that state things.
– The grass is green.
• All sentences consist of both.
– I love you.
• Action-oriented nature of language.
Doing discursive psychology
• Ten stages (Potter & Wetherell, 1987):
– research questions
– sample selection
– collection of records and documents
– interviews
– transcription
– coding
– analysis
– validation
– the report
– application
Asking appropriate questions
• Very different to orthodox psychology.
• Concern with way language is used (not
what lies beyond language).
• Focus on talk itself! How is it constructed
and what function does it have?
– Role of blaming in marital discord.
– Construction of a racist discourse.
– Medical repertoires about patients.
Collecting data
• Naturally occurring discourse preferred.
– Absence of researcher.
• In practice interviews often necessary.
– Intervene more.
– More confrontational.
– Natural conversation.
– Analysis of interviewer and interviewee.
Analysis
• Detailed transcription:
– Jefferson system.
• Coding:
– Selection criteria.
– Inclusive.
– May re-code later.
• Search for differences (content or form)
and shared features.
(cont . . .)
 Analysis (continued)
• Concern for function and effect.
• How does the text construct the object or
event of interest?
• What interpretative repertoires are
invoked?
– Fox hunting: base animal instincts versus
maintenance of tradition.
• Hypotheses about functions/effects and
search for linguistic evidence.
Writing it up
• Usual qualitative report format.

• Validity check (Potter & Wetherell, 1987):

– persuasiveness
– coherence
– consequences
– fruitfulness
Foucauldian discourse analysis
• Discourse: ‘...group of statements which provide a
language for talking about…a particular topic at a
particular historical moment…Discourse is about the
production of knowledge through language...’ (Hall,
1992: 291).
• All meaning is constructed through
discourse (social constructionism) - not
denying a material reality outside discourse
but nothing can have meaning outside
discourse.
(cont . . .)
Foucauldian discourse analysis (continued)
• Construction of the subject.
– e.g. ‘the homosexual’.
• Positioning.
– As sick, criminal.
• Discourses allowing and limiting ways of
being.
• Discourse and power.
– Knowledge used to regulate conduct.
Doing Foucauldian discourse
analysis
• Focus on discourses, construction of
subjectivity, subject positions, power and
politics.
• Anything can be discourse.
• More macro-level than DP.
– Less focus on micro-level interactional issues.
• Identify and describe discourses and
explore the way they position people.
Parker (1992) - 20 steps
• Abridged:
– explore connotations
– specify types of person talked about
– map picture of world described by discourse
– examine contrasting ways of speaking
– examine discursive terms being employed
– identify institutions reinforced by discourse
– look for categories of person gaining or losing
– look at who would want to promote discourse
– look for links to other discourses
Strengths, limitations and debates
• Sophisticated understanding of language.
• Critical move away from cognition.
• Lack of ‘a person’ (agent):
– Implicit but not explicit.
– Passive notion of subjectivity.
• Questions about the extra-discursive.
• Idealism, realism and critical realism.