Discourse Analytic Approach - Essay Example

Dis Analytic Approach Affiliation Dis Analytic Approach It is difficult, if not impossible to analyze a dis analytic approach as any other traditional psychological means of investigation. Often, the status of discourse analysis is referred to as a theoretical perspective rather than a social life’s epistemological perspective comprised of conceptual and methodological elements. Discourse analytic approach cuts across disciplines and academic borders into the neighboring methodology in the fields of membership categorization analysis, rhetoric, and conversation analysis. Additionally, the discourse analytic approach as a theoretical construction and field is emerging and astir (Willig & Rogers, 2007). Researchers’ assumptions, research interests, and philosophies on how to define discourse analysis are different. Different school of thoughts, analytic interests, and understandings of discourse are easily categorized within and across disciplines. The range of discourse analysis approach also includes critical perspectives. An example of this is when critical discourse analysts take explicit ideological and socio-political stands towards data analysis (Valsiner, 2012). Some critical discourse analysts apply a lot of emphasis on the transformative nature of the evaluation while others, especially those close to the conversation analytic field explicitly focus on the micro-dynamics of the speaker’s orientation and interactions. There are several factors that make discourse analytic approach provide more insights into social phenomena than any other approaches. One of these factors is that the different fields of discourse analysis share common themes. In whichever form discourse analysis takes, it probes the nature of social actions by analyzing how meanings and actions are constructed in the context of text or conversation. A discourse researcher practically searches for an order or pattern of how the text or talk is organized and how social life, inter-subjective understandings, and a number of institutional practices are constructed, accomplished and reproduced. For instance, how do individuals make sense of their identities, and how are groups and collectives formed and preserved through conversations or text? Another valuable analytic tool falls under the psychological classification of interactions. It is how people make sense and use of memories or emotions in interactions, and what social role do the psychological classifications play in interactions. In discourse analysis, a researcher may also focus on long-term and historical discursive formation. For example, how making sense of an individual-institution like the European Union or a university has developed and evolved over time (Jørgensen & Philips, 2002). In general, topics like hospital cultures, everyday descriptions, attitudes, opinions, emotions, institutional practices, and identity are usually not taken as abstract structures. In addition, they are not distinct from the conversations, texts and instructional activities that create them. Alternatively, discourse researchers approach them in terms of how they are constructed and relative to their interaction and social functions. In discourse analysis, data sets include all forms of conversations in writing, audio, or video format. Therefore, data in the discourse analytic approach range from natural multi-party or dyadic conversations in institutional and everyday settings, to interviews, records, media products, newspaper articles, diaries, speeches, and the analysis of semiotic structures and visual materials (Valsiner, 2012). The second factor related to themes is how discourse analytic approach takes into consideration the everyday language for its situated and occasioned functions. Discourse analysis takes into account that people use words to explain, account for, make excuses, blame, construct facts, and present themselves to other people in certain ways. The primary intent of a discourse researcher is to identify the repeating patterns in the use of languages. By clarifying the dilemmas and dynamics of how people actively make sense of words, details of their how they account, categories, and explain becomes evident. Take an example of how a lawyer and a witness converse in a rape case to determine whether characteristic rape is possible in the case. In the dialog, the lawyer and the witness create distinct descriptions of where the defendant and the victim met. Their different versions show different scenarios, motives, and interpretations of what took place on the day in question. The witness would choose words that dispute the lawyer’s words (Abraham & Williams, 2009). For settings such as meetings and courtrooms, individuals using words to establish facts is a frequent occurrence. In such situations, conversations are constructed with discourse that fits the context. This is also common with everyday conversations that are crafted to fit the context of the interaction. It therefore, implies that to be a discourse analyst, an individual should be able to transform familiar things to strange and step back to observe. This requires the discourse researcher to develop an appreciation of the artfulness of conversations, text, and interactions (Wodak & Chilton, 2005). The third factor is how discourse analytic approach takes emphasis on discursive psychology by focusing on persuasive, moral and rhetorical aspects of language use. In discourse analysis, researchers take note of the conception that discourse is steered towards persuasion, and it results to conversations being organized in an argumentative manner. Practically, this means that conversations are analyzed based on how they take to available opposing arguments. Such argumentative conversation is evident in the earlier example of a dialog between a lawyer and a witness in a rape case. Similar rhetorical structures form basis for people’s everyday discourse and argumentations. Additionally, newspaper articles, election debates, parliamentary discussions are all data sources for discourse researchers. They all represent data sets that are useful in rhetorical analysis (Schiffrin, Tannen, & Hamilton, 2001). Another factor that makes discourse a more useful analytical tool in social psychology is its ability to use data from interviews. Although some discourse researchers might argue against the use of interviews as sources of data, a majority are for the idea. In discourse, the data gathered from interviews is viewed as part of an interaction on its own right. This is possible by understanding the question as a medium of getting the opinions of the respondents but as an important part of the data. In discourse analysis, the researcher addresses and analyzes the interviewees’ position on the relevance of their conversation. In recent researches, interviews have been depicted to be a particular social context (Soler & Safont-Jordà, 2012). They constitute a specific category of institutional conversations that can be separately studied. Therefore, a research interview viewed as a discursive act, provides an abundant source for theoretical and analytical perspectives. In the end interview data as a source of discursive analysis provides unique data that other psychological analysis tools do not have access to. In discourse analysis, researchers spend a lot of time reading and rereading the materials used for data collection. It is also recommended that when audio and video recordings of interactions raise questions, their analysis should be done alongside the original recording material. At this stage, the transcribed conversations are coded in accordance to the researcher’s interests. Also, initial analytical questions are often refined and specified at this point (Abraham & Williams, 2009). The development and finessing coding systems and determining a suitable organizing system for the material, is where discourse analysis approach becomes a craft skill. The researchers apply sophisticated techniques that are rarely used in other social psychological studies. These coding techniques eventually play a significant role in providing analysis materials that provide a deeper understanding of certain social phenomena. Discourse analytic coding also involves joint data reading sessions with colleagues. The sessions offer different interpretations of the data that result in a better understanding of the social phenomena. In discourse research, researchers are given the freedom to do a comparison between the existing discourse research reports with his or her materials and analysis. Due to this, researchers are required to be familiar with existing literatures and other pieces of discourse analysis not only to help them with building an analytic acuity, but also to make sustainable and relevant analysis (Hepburn & Wiggins, 2007). Validity and reliability are two factors that are stressed a lot in social science research. To produce good quality work, researchers rely on the agreed upon norms and ethics (Dalton-Puffer, 2007). Discourse analysis research often works with transcripts. There are various questions that researchers in this field ask themselves to ensure validity and reliability of their work. One of the issues is what are the advantages and strengths of working with transcripts. The rationale for using recordings and transcripts based on those recordings is that they provide valuable information about particular social events. In discourse analysis, the provision of empirical information in this form allows fellow researchers and other readers to make their own judgments. Transcripts bring transparency and immediacy to the social phenomena under study. The audience, just like the researcher gets given a chance to study the data used for analysis equally. It is imperative for analytic information to be firmly anchored in the data. Compared to the conversation analysis and other traditional forms of analysis, more latitude is permitted (Gill, 2007). However, the final evaluation of how persuasive the analytic claim is left to the reader. Therefore, discourse analysis emphasizes on convincing qualities and rhetorical persuasiveness of its research reports. It also values the reader’s judgment on the validity of the report. The justification for discursive researchers to used transcripts is usually presented in comparison and contrast to the use ethnography, especially field notes. Working with transcripts reduces the ethnographer’s reliability because of the inaccuracy of field notes and their limited access to the public. The problem with field note is that they are solely based on the observations and translations of another individual and they often depend on the memory of the observer (McKinlay, McVittie, 2007). The reader is limited to trusting the observer’s descriptions of what he or she witnessed. Hence, footnotes that create a suspicion are based on the selections of the author rather than the facts. However, if researchers use transcripts, they do have to be concerned about their reliability and validity. Additionally, to ensure superior reliability and transparency of transcripts, high and adequate technical recording is required. Also, researchers are expected to pay attention adequately on data selection. Discourse analytic method has well-documented literature on how to create transcripts, discussion on the reasons not to produce tidied-up versions of the transcripts and reasons for only using particular transcript notations. However, one mostly overlooked concern is that most of the discourse analysis is not done in English. Hence, researchers are required to translate original transcripts to English. To ensure validity, the translated transcripts are usually presented alongside the original transcripts (Mayr 2008). Also to guarantee the verifiability of discourse analytic research, the process of translating is done in accordance with the generally agreed upon rules and regulations for the process. All types of social research approach inevitably end up delimiting the data. Researchers are a limited exhibition of the social world. Social studies are already a product of the researcher’s choices. Despite the supposed accuracy of video and audio recordings, critics argue that the method of data collection has the potential of distorting the presentation. The critics argue that video recordings limit the study and the questions asked in the research. For example, a lot of research has been done in stationary situations like meetings, consultations, and ward rounds. However, a number of the activities ongoing at the bedsides, along the corridors, and discussion between the staff and the clients are ignored. The critics clearly do a lot of injustice to the discursive researches. They fail to recognize the rapidly increasing range of empirical studies. In addition to collecting video recordings, discursive researchers include other methods of data collection like ethnography. Also, researchers use mobile data collection technologies in a number of interaction situations (Bull 2002). Most critics are limited because they are built in the juxtaposition of ethnography and research done through recordings. A question mostly asked about discourse analysis research is whether transcripts are adequate sources of data or if additional information is gathered by other means. It is important to note that discursive studies do not limit themselves to video and audio recordings. Literature of this kind of research provides an alternative of combining ethnography and other handwritten ways of data collection during interviews and observations. An analysis of a discourse event may fail to include some parts of the event even when they did occur. On the other hand, conducting a research where ethnography is the primary method of information collection may also result in data loss (Stausberg & Engler, 2013). Researchers are advised to apply a limited affinity between discourse research methods and ethnographic methods. There are three ways through which ethnography can be used to compliment close analysis of audio and video recording. The first is in the setting’s descriptions and identification of the parties. The second is in the further explanations of key terms, course of actions and phrases that the researcher might not be familiar with. The last one is in noting unusual patterns that may occur during the prior data analysis. Restrictions that put a limit on the kind of data and methods of data collection that researchers use in their social researches do not apply to discourse analytic approach. Discursive researchers are known for their varied opinions on the style and degree that the social structure is incorporated. Discourse analysts support the combination of different traditions and are opposed to the establishment of partisan camps that are based on animosity. They argue that it is through ongoing dialogs among traditions that breakthroughs occur. Methods of data collection, such as observations, documentation, and interviews do not work against each other and discourse analytic researchers are encouraged to utilize them all (Benwell & Stokoe, 2006). The translation of skills into techniques is not an easy thing. However, this is what discourse analytic approach in social psychology entails. Its researchers have mastered this difficult technique, and the results speak for themselves. Discursive researchers give a deeper understanding of social phenomena that are rather difficult to understand by using the other approaches. References Abraham, L., & Williams, L. (2009).Electronic Discourse in Language Learning and Language Teaching. Boston, U.S: John Benjamins Company. Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and Identity. Manchester, U.K: Edinburg University Press. Bull, P. (2002). Communication under the Microscope: The Theory and Practice of Microanalysis. New York, U.S: Routledge. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Philadelphia, U.S: John Benjamins B.V. Gill, R. (2007). Gender and the Media. Cambridge, U.K: Polity Press. Hepburn, A., & Wiggins, S. (2007). Discursive Research in Practice: New Approaches to Psychology and Interaction. New York, U.S: M. E. Sharpe. Inc. Jørgensen, M., & Philips, L. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London, U.K: SAGE Publication. Mayr, A. (2008). Language and Power: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse. London, U.K: A & C Black. McKinlay, A., & McVittie, C. (2007). Social Psychology and Discourse. Oxford, U.K: WILEY Publication. Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. (2001). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford, U.K: Blackwell Publishers. Soler, E., & Safont-Jordà, M. (2012). Discourse and Language Learning Across L2 Instructional Settings. New York, U.S: Rodopi B.V. Stausberg, M., & Engler, S. (2013).The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in the Study Of Religion. Washington, U.S: Routledge. Valsiner, J. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press. Willig, C., & Rogers, S. (2007).The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. London, U.K: SAGE Publications. Wodak, R., & Chilton, A. (2005). A New Agenda in (critical) Discourse Analysis. Philadelphia, U.S: John Benjamins B.V. Read More