The term ‘violence within close relationships’ is a new approach that deviates from the earlier framings of ‘men’s violence against women’, and is a specific Swedish policy term.
This new approach indicates a gender-neutral conceptualisation in which both victim and perpetrator are invisible in terms of gender.Legal obligations and the problems for the healthcare sector are only vaguely defined.
Discourse analysis can be used to analyse small and large data sets with homogenous and heterogenous samples. It can be applied to any type of data source, from interviews and focus groups to diary entries, news reports and online discussion forums. However, interpretation in discourse analysis can lead to limitations and challenges that tend to occur when discourse analysis is misapplied or done poorly. Discourse analysis can be highly flexible and is best used when anchored in a theoretical approach. Because discourse analysis involves subjective interpretation, training and support from a qualitative researcher with expertise in the method is required to ensure that the interpretation of the data is meaningful. Finally, discourse analysis can be time-consuming when analysing large volumes of texts.
Discourse analysis is a process whereby texts are examined and interpreted. It looks for the meanings ‘behind’ text in cultural and social contexts. Discourse analysis is flexible, and the researcher has scope to interpret the text(s) based on the research topic and aim(s). Having a theoretical approach assists the researcher to position the discourse in cultural and social grounding.
Qualitative Research – a practical guide for health and social care researchers and practitioners Copyright © 2023 by Tess Tsindos is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.
Qualitative researchers often try to understand the world by listening to how people talk, but it can be really revealing to look at not just what people say, but how. This is how discourse analysis (DA) can be used to examine qualitative data.
Qualitative research often focuses on what people say: be that in interviews , focus-groups , diaries , social media or documents . Qualitative researchers often try to understand the world by listening to how people talk, but it can be really revealing to look at not just what people say, but how. Essentially this is the how discourse analysis (DA) can be used to examine qualitative data. Discourse is the complete system by which people communicate, it’s the widest interpretation of what we call ‘language’. It includes both written, verbal and non-verbal communication, as well as the wider social concepts that underpin what language means, and how it changes. For example, it can be revealing to look at how some people use a particular word, or terms from a particular local dialect. This can show their upbringing and life history, or influences from other people and workplace culture. It can also be interesting to look at non-verbal communication: people’s facial expressions and hand movements are an important part of the context of what people say. But language is also a dynamic part of culture, and the meanings behind terms change over time. How we understand terms like ‘fake news’ or ‘immigration’ or ‘freedom’ tells us a lot, not just about the times we live in or the people using those terms, but groups that have power to change the discourse on such issues. We will look at all these as separate types of discourse analysis. But first it’s important to understand why language is so important; it is much more than just a method of communication.
“Language allows us to do things. It allows us to engage in actions and activities. We promise people things, we open committee meetings, we propose to our lovers, we argue over politics, and we “talk to God”…
Language allows us to be things. It allows us to take on different socially significant identities. We can speak as experts—as doctors, lawyers, anime aficionados, or carpenters—or as ‘everyday people’. To take on any identity at a given time and place we have to ‘talk the talk’…” - Gee 2011
Language is more than a neutral way of communicating, it’s deeply connected with actions and personal identity, and can even shape the way we think about and understand the world. Who we are, what we do, and our beliefs are all shaped by the language we use. This makes it a very rich avenue for analysis.
Types of discourse analysis Just like so many blanket qualitative terms , there are a lot of different practices and types of analysis called ‘discourse’ analysis, and many different ways of applying them. Hodges et al. (2008) identify 3 meta-types, broadly going from more face-value to conceptual analysis: • Formal linguistic (basically looking at words/phrases, grammar or semantics) • Empirical (social practice constructed through text) • Critical (language constructing and limiting thought)
Tannen et al., 2015 categorise three similar broad types of analysis, again becoming increasingly socially conceptual:
• language use
• anything beyond the sentence
• a broader range of social practice that includes non-linguistic and non-specific instances of language
However Gee (2011) only recognises two main categories, essentially those that look at the use of words, and ‘critical discourse analysis’: like the latter of both groupings above, this is analysis of how language is situated in cultural and contextual power dynamics. But before we get there, let’s start with an example of some more obvious linguistic level discourse analysis.
Example Imagine the following scenario from your favourite fictional medical drama. A patient is wheeled into the ER/casualty unit, conscious but suffering from burns. The doctor attending says three things:
To Patient: “We’re just going to give you a little injection to help with the pain.”
To Nurse: “10cc’s of sodium pentothal, stat!”
To Surgeon: “We’ve got severe second-degree chemical burns, GA administered”
In this situation, the doctor has said essentially the same thing 3 times, but each time using a different response for each recipient. Firstly, when talking to the patient, the doctor doesn’t use any medical terminology, and uses calming and minimising language to comfort the patient. This is a classic type of discourse we are familiar with from medical TV dramas, the ‘good bed-side manner’.
To the nurse, the doctor has a different tone, more commanding and even condescending. It’s a barked command, finished with the term ‘stat!’ - a commonly used medial slang word (actually from the Latin word ‘statum’ meaning immediately, that’s your linguistic analysis!). This is interesting, because it’s not a term you’d hear used in other professional places like a busy kitchen. It shows there is a specific discourse for the setting (a hospital) and for different people in the setting. The ‘10cc of sodium pentothal’ is a commonly used anaesthetic: the same ‘something to help with the pain’ but now with a (trademarked) pharmacological name and dose.
Finally, to the surgeon the same prescription is described by the doctor as an abbreviation (GA for General Anaesthetic). Between senior health professionals, abbreviations might be used more often, in this case actually hiding the specific drug given, perhaps on the basis that the surgeon doesn’t need to know. It could also imply that since only that basic first step has been made, there has been little assessment or intervention so far, telling to an experienced ear what stage of the proceedings they are walking in on. The use of the term ‘we’ might imply the doctor and surgeon are on the same level, as part of the team, a term not used when addressing the nurse.
Even in this small example, there are a lot of different aspects of discourse to unpack. It is very contextually dependent, none of the phrases or manners are likely to be adopted by the doctor in the supermarket or at home. This shows how the identity and performativity of the doctor is connected to their job (and shaped by it, and contextual norms). It also shows differences in discourse between different actors, and power dynamics which are expressed and created through discursive norms.
At a very basic level, we could probably do an interesting study on TV shows and the use of the term ‘stat!’. We could look at how often the term was used, how often it was used by doctors to nurses (often) and by nurses to doctors (rarely). This would probably be more like a basic linguistic analysis, possibly even quantitative. It’s one of the few occasions that a keyword search in a qualitative corpus can be useful – because you are looking at the use of a single, non-replaceable word. If someone says ‘now please’ or ‘as soon as you can’ it has a very different meaning and power dynamic, so we are not interested in synonyms here. However, we probably still want to trawl through the whole text to look at different phrases that are used, and why ‘stat!’ was not the command in all situations. This would be close to the ‘formal linguistic’ approach listed above.
But a more detailed, critical and contextual examination of the discourse might show that nurses struggle with out-moded power dynamics in hospitals (eg Fealy and McNamara 2007 , Turner et al 2007 ). Both of these papers are described as ‘critical’ discourse analysis. However, this term is used in many different ways.
Critical discourse analysis is probably the most often cited, but often used in the most literal sense – that it looks at discourse critically, and takes a comparative and critical analytic stance. It’s another term like ‘grounded theory’ that is used as a catch-all for many different nuanced approaches. But there is another ‘level’ of critical discourse analysis, influenced by Foucault (1972, 1980) and others, that goes beyond reasons for use and local context, to examine how thought processes in society influenced by the control of language and meanings.
Critical discourse analysis (hardcore mode)
“What we commonly accept as objective or obviously true is only so because of negotiated agreement among people” – Gee (2011)
Language and discourse are not absolute. Gee (2011) notes at least three different ways that the positionality of discourse can be shown to be constructed and non-universal: meanings and reality can change over time, between cultures, and finally with ‘discursive construction’ – due to power dynamics in setting language that controls how we understand concepts. Gee uses the term ‘deconstruction’ in the Derridian sense of the word, advocating for the critical examining and dismantling of unquestioned assumptions about what words mean and where they come from.
But ‘deep’ critical discourse analysis also draws heavily from Foucault and an examination of how language is a result of power dynamics, and that the discourse of society heavily regulates what words are understood to mean, as well as who can use them. It also implies that because of these systems of control, discourse is used to actually change and reshape thought and expression. But the key jump is to understand and explain that “what we take to be the truth about the world importantly depends on the social relationships of which we are a part” (Gergen 2015). This is social construction, and a key part of the philosophy behind much critical discourse analysis.
Think of the use of the term ‘freedom’ in mainstream and political discourse in the United States. It is one of the most powerful words used by politicians, and has been for centuries (eg Chanley and Chanley 2015 ) However, it’s use and meaning have changed over time, and what different people from different parts of the political spectrum understand to be enshrined under this concept can be radically different, and even exclusionary. Those in powerful political and media positions are able to change the rhetoric around words like freedom, and sub-terms like ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of religion’ are both being shifted in public discourse, even on a daily basis, and taking our own internal concepts and ideas with them. It may be that there has never been an age when so much power to manipulate discourse is concentrated in so few places, and able to shift it so rapidly.
Doing Discourse
So do we ‘do’ discourse analysis? How can we start examining complex qualitative data from many voices from a point of view of discourse? Like so many qualitative analytical techniques , researchers will usually adopt a blend of approaches: doing some elements of linguistic analysis, as well as critical discourse analysis for some parts or research questions. They may also draw on narrative and thematic analysis . But discourse analysis is often comparative, it lends itself to differences in the use of language between individuals, professionals and contexts.
From a practical point of view, it can be started by a close reading of key words and terms, especially if it is not clear from the outset what the important and illustrative ones are going to be. For building a complete picture of discourse, a line-by-line approach can be adopted, but it’s also useful to use ‘codes’ or ‘themes’ to tag every use of some terms, or just significant ones. A qualitative software tool like Quirkos can help you do this.
For critical discourse analysis, examination of primary data is rarely enough – it needs to be deeply contextualised within the wider societal or environmental norms that govern a particular subset of discourse. So policy and document analysis are often entwined and can be analysed in the same project. From here, it’s difficult to describe a single technique further, as it will greatly vary by type of source. It is possible in discourse analysis for a single sentence or word to be the major focus of the study, or it may look widely across many different people and data sources.
The textbooks below are all classic works on discourse analysis, each a rabbit hole in itself to digest (especially the new edition of Gergen (2015) which goes much wider into social construction). However, Hodges et al. (2008) is a nice short, practical overview to start your journey.
If you are looking for a tool to help your qualitative discourse analysis, why not give Quirkos a try? It was designed by qualitative researchers to be the software they wanted to use, and is flexible enough for a whole number of analytical approaches, including discourse analysis. Download a free trial , or read more about it here .
Gee, J., P., 2011. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis . Routledge, London.
Gergen, K. J., 2015, An invitation to Social Construction . Sage, London.
Hodges, B. D., Kuper, A., Reeves, S. 2008. Discourse Analysis. BMJ , a879.
Johnstone, B., 2017. Discourse Analysis . Wiley, London.
Paltridge, B., 2012. Discourse Analysis: An Introduction . Bloomsbury.
Tannen, D., Hamilton, H., Schiffrin, D. 2015. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis . Wiley, Chichester.
Margaret Adolphus talks about discourse analysis.
Definition of discourse analysis, where does discourse analysis fit, some prominent thinkers in discourse analysis, applications of discourse analysis, what can discourse analysis contribute to research.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines discourse analysis as:
"Linguistics, a method of analysing the structure of texts or utterances longer than one sentence, taking into account both their linguistic content and their sociolinguistic context; analysis performed using this method."
There is a problem, however, not with the wording of this definition, but with the concept itself, which implies that language can have a fixed meaning as the very ethos of discourse analysis is that language and discourse (in the sense of a speech communication) is not a fixed, immutable reality, but one that is moulded by a social context, and can in turn build up a picture of the world which is unique to the author of the discourse.
Discourse analysis as a research technique involves the analysis of language with the above framework in mind, and has become increasingly popular in recent years in the social and management sciences.
According to Snape and Spencer (2003, p. 200), discourse analysis originates from the discipline of sociology and is about:
"Examining the way knowledge is produced within different discourses and the performances, linguistic styles and rhetorical devices used in particular accounts."
According to Jankowicz (2005, p.229), discourse analysis is of particular relevance when listening to people's own narratives of a situation – the biographical approach.
"Discourse analysis ... [focuses] on the way in which your respondents draw on differing interpretive repertoires depending on their interpretation of the context in which your interview takes place. The technique focuses on the way in which language is used in given settings, and in a discourse analysis, your task is to identify the context; the various interpretive repertoires; and attempt a matching of one to the other, to arrive at an understanding of the function, from the point of view of your respondent, of the different stories being told."
In a guest editorial from the Journal of Organizational Change Management which looked at the contribution of discourse analysis to an understanding of organisational change, Grant et al . (2005) quote Fairclough and Wodak (1997, p. 277):
"Discourse is not produced without context and cannot be understood without taking context into consideration ... Discourses are always connected to other discourses which were produced earlier, as well as those which are produced synchronically and subsequently."
In other words, language does not have a fixed, objective meaning, but is coloured by a whole range of situational factors: the author's belief system, the surrounding political, economic and social context, any professional community to which the person belongs – which will have its own jargon (as in medical or legal) – as well as the immediate situation in which the words were uttered.
Herasymovych and Nørreklit (2006) provide a case study of ideological assumptions of Ukrainian managers, in which they use discourse analysis to reveal how attitudes change as a result of the transformation from communism to market liberalism.
The authors found several discourses of:
Discourse analysis is an analytic technique rather than a theory, and its popularity has arisen from the growing interest, starting late in the last century, in qualitative research and ways of analysing the data it produces. There are a number of similar methods, for example,
Discourse analysis has multiple disciplinary origins – sociology, socio-psychology, anthropology, linguistics and philosophy, communications studies, and literature (Grant et al ., 2005). It thus brings a multidisciplinary perspective.
Its regard for context sets it slightly apart from ethnographic methods, which, according to Lee and Roth (2006) tend to approach participants' talk and actions at face value. Participant observation often involves the researcher having a relatively "invisible" role, as an observer. In the collection of data for discourse analysis, however, the researcher has a more active role and may "co-construct" the interview process.
It can also be contrasted with behaviourist and cognitivist approaches: discourse is not just a product of a person's cognitive and mental state. Thinking makes use of concepts, and concepts are by definition in the public domain, influenced by a broad range of social and intellectual factors. discourse analysis is also influenced by social constructionism: people and their doings are not "natural observable facts", but are constantly shaped by the society around them.
Many writers have contributed to the field of discourse analysis, but two of the most prominent are Norman Fairclough and Michel Foucault .
Norman Fairclough is the father of critical discourse analysis. He comes to discourse analysis from a linguistics and language perspective; he is emeritus professor in the Department of Linguistics and English Language at the University of Lancaster, UK.
Fairclough sees discourse as:
"a social practice which constructs social identities, social relations and the knowledge and meaning systems of the social world ... [which] both reflects and produces the ideas and assumptions relating to the ways in which personal identities, social relations, and knowledge systems are constituted through social practice" (Nielson and Nørreklit, 2009; p. 204).
In other words, critical discourse analysis sees the language of discourse as a kind of two-way mirror: it both reflects and contributes to the social world, its knowledge systems and its social relationships.
There are two dimensions to critical discourse analysis: the "communicative event", or the specific incident of language use, and that which Fairclough terms "discourse order", which is the "discourse practices" or the way language is used within a particular social institution (for example, the particular vocabulary used within an organisation) or domain area (for example, linguistics, sociology, or medicine).
Critical discourse analysis uses three levels of analysis (Nielson and Nørreklit, 2009; p. 205):
Critical discourse analysis combines an "internal" study of language with "external" study of its context – how the text is affected by social practices and relations (Cheng, 2009). The term "intertextuality" is often used – which means the need for one text to be read in the light of its allusions to and differences from the content or structure of other texts. Critical discourse analysis can often be used to reveal power relationships, and how certain groups can be marginalised.
The approach of Michel Foucault, the French philosopher, sociologist and historian, is more abstract and less linguistically based than that of Fairclough. Although he acknowledged the role of language in the creation and formation of knowledge, he was not concerned with the analysis of spoken and written language and texts. He was more interested in the rules that determine which statements are accepted as meaningful, and the links between power and knowledge: expert knowledge in a particular domain can act as a system of control, and knowledge is institutionally contingent (Haider and Bawden, 2007).
Discourse analysis is used in a wide range of fields. A search [October 2009] of Emerald's journal database content (all fields excluding fulltext) for the phrase "discourse analysis" over the last ten years produced results with the following distribution:
It is interesting that there are in this sample almost as many accountancy papers as there are ones on organisational change. Several of the top journals in their fields are represented – Journal of Organizational Change Management (6), Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal (6), Journal of Documentation (4), European Journal of Marketing (1).
Methods of collecting the data included document analysis, interviews, group discussion, case studies, and ethnography; the data are drawn from a variety of different types of "talk" and "text".
The above lists are not exhaustive, but are meant to show the versatility of discourse analysis, which can be applied to almost any situation in which language is used (and indeed, to images as well, as these are often intended to convey a particular meaning, as in cartoons or newspaper advertisements).
Neither the methods nor the data sources are used exclusively: observation is often combined with interviews, interviews with document analysis, for example. Discourse analysis is often not used on its own, but in combination with other analytic methods, such as content analysis, critical sense making, rhetorical analysis, or quantitative linguistic analysis.
The big advantage of discourse analysis is that it challenges "the taken-for-granted nature of language" (Sitz, 2008). Thus it can probe the way in which organisational language displays subtle shifts in values and priorities, disclose how documents may appear to present a positive agenda to the reader, but in fact have a much darker purpose, and encourage a more qualitative, interpretative perspective on an area such as company reports, which have previously only been subjected to quantitative approaches.
Grant et al . (2005) provide a guest editorial to an issue of the Journal of Organizational Change Management (Vol. 18 No. 1) which looks at the contribution of discourse analysis to the area. They cite a number of benefits of the method:
Tsoukas (2005), in an afterword to the same issue, confirms the value of discourse analysis in understanding the complexity of organisational change.
Language is very subtle: new meanings can be created or subtly subverted to put a positive gloss on something, while the same events can be described in radically different ways. Some years ago, a large publishing conglomerate decided to pull all its academic journals out of one company and exchange them for another company's small division of distance learning materials. The managers described this as "portfolio realignment"; a disgruntled worker, disillusioned at the loss of a cash cow in return for a problem child, referred to the exchange as "leprosy".
Policy documents are often in fact public relations documents. In a democracy, policy has to be sold; you cannot enforce it. And policy, too, may be dictated by complex factors – free market capitalism, for example – which it may not be politic to disclose too clearly.
Discourse analysis can disentangle the different agendas of policy documents. Ocler (2009) describes how in France, corporate social responsibility became a legal requirement – but firms needed to present their corporate social responsibility policies in a positive light for the benefit of their policy holders.
Cheng (2009) discusses the introduction of the voucher scheme for pre-primary education in Hong Kong. She shows how while the policy text highlighted issues of choice, efficiency and equity, the reality is in fact more complex:
" ... notions of choice and efficiency have an obvious attraction, but the language presented masks a much more complex situation in which choice and efficiency are to be secured through the application of market principles and given this development it is by no means certain that these objectives will be secured. For example, different producers and consumers become privileged in this market context, and it is by no means certain that all will have choice. More likely, is that choice will be restricted to the more affluent, whilst efficiency may be effected by a failure to create any level playing field between not for profit and private providers" (Cheng, 2009; p. 364).
All policy documents should be read within their context, in this case, marketisation, and in that referred to above, legislation. This is what Fairclough means by "discourse practice".
Accountancy is an area which has recently seen a greater interest in qualitative methods; in fact, a journal was recently launched devoted to this approach ( Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management ). According to Ferguson (2007), the study of text can be limited if it does not look at the circumstances surrounding its production and interpretation.
Motivation is also part of the surrounding context, and Yusoff et al ., (2006) use discourse analysis to probe the corporate motivation for environmental activities.
Various uses have been made of discourse analysis in the field of library and information science, but Haider and Bawden (2007) make an interesting contribution when they point out that one of the key concepts of the field, information poverty, is in fact a product of information synthesis: two concepts, both with strong resonances, are put together with explosive political effect.
The above are just a few of many examples which could be cited of the insights which discourse analysis can bring to research. It is a versatile technique which brings insights from many disciplines, and which uses the richness and ambiguity of language to go beyond the text into the many worlds that influence it.
Cheng, A.Y.N. (2009), " Analysing complex policy change in Hong Kong: what role for critical discourse analysis? ", International Journal of Education Management , Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 360-366.
Chio, V. (2008), " Transfers, training and inscriptions: The production of modern market citizens in Malaysia ", critical perspectives on international business , Vol. 4 No. 2/3, pp. 166-183.
Clulow, V. (2005), " Futures dilemmas for marketers: can stakeholder analysis add value? ", European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 39 No. 9/10, pp. 978-997.
Court, M. (2004), " Advancing women's careers: what can we learn from co-principals' stories? ", Equal Opportunities International , Vol. 23 No. 7/8, pp. 39-61.
Ferguson, J. (2007), " Analysing accounting discourse: avoiding the 'fallacy of internalism'" , Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal , Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 912-934.
Grant, D., Michelson, G., Oswick, C. and Wailes, N. (2005), Guest editorial: discourse and organizational change, Journal of Organizational Change Management , Journal of Organizational Change Management , Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 6-15.
Haider, J. and Bawden, D. (2007), " Conceptions of 'information poverty' in LIS: a discourse analysis ", Journal of Documentation , Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 534-557.
Herasymovych, A. and Nørreklit, H. (2006), " Management discourse in the transition from communism to market economy: the case of Ukraine ", Society and Business Review , Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 158-170.
Jankowicz, A.D. (2005), Business Research Projects , 4th ed., Thomson Learning, London.
Jensen, H.R. (2008), " The Mohammed cartoons controversy and the boycott of Danish products in the Middle East ", European Business Review , Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 275-289.
Jurasaite-Harbison, E. (2009), " Teachers' workplace learning within informal contexts of school cultures in the United States and Lithuania ", Journal of Workplace Learning , Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 299-321.
Krefting, L.A. (2002), " Re-presenting women executives: valorization and devalorization in US business press ", Women in Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 3/4, pp. 104-119.
Langer, R. and Beckman, S.C. (2005), " Sensitive research topics: netnography revisited ", Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal , Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 189-203.
Iarskaia-Smirnova, E. and Romanov, P. (2008), " Gendering social work in Russia: towards anti-discriminatory practices ", Equal Opportunities International , Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 64-76.
Lee, Y-J. and Roth, W-M. (2006), " Learning about workplace learning and expertise from Jack: a discourse analytical study ", Journal of Workplace Learning , Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 205-219.
Mills, C.E. and Pawson, K. (2006), " Enterprising talk: a case of self construction ", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research , Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 238-344.
Misra, R., Mukherjee, A. and Peterson, R. (2008), " Value creation in virtual communities: the case of a healthcare web site ", International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing , Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 321-337.
Nielson, A.E. and Nørreklit, H. (2009), " A discourse analysis of the disciplinary power of management coaching ", Society and Business Review , Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 202-214.
Ocler, R. (2009), " Discourse analysis and corporate social responsibility: a qualitative approach ", Society and Business Review , Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 175-186.
O'Shea, P. (2007), " A discursive study of institutionalization in community organizations ", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy , Vol. 27 No. 11/12, pp. 483-493.
Pollach, I. (2005), " Corporate self-presentation on the WWW: Strategies for enhancing usability, credibility and utility ", Corporate Communications: An International Journal , Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 285-301.
Rigg, C. (2005), " 'It's in the way they talk': A discourse analysis of managing in two small businesses ", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research , Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 58-75.
Robinson, M.G. and Lynch, P.A. (2007), " Hospitality through poetry: control, fake solidarity, and breakdown ", International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research , Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 237-246.
Sitz, L. (2008), " Beyond semiotics and hermeneutics: discourse analysis as a way to interpret consumers' discourses and experiences ", Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal , Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 177-191.
Smith, B., Sharma, P. and Hooper, P. (2006), "Decision making in online fantasy sports communities", Interactive Technology and Smart Education , Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 347-360.
Snape, D. and Spencer, L. (2003) "The foundations of qualitative research", in Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (Eds), Qualitative Research Practice , Sage Publications, London.
Tsoukas, H. (2005), " Afterword: why language matters in the analysis of organizational change ", Journal of Organizational Change Management , Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 96-104.
Yusoff, H., Lehman, G. and Nasir, N. (2006), " Environmental engagements through the lens of disclosure practices: A Malaysian story ", Asian Review of Accounting , Vol. 14 No. 1/2, pp. 122-148.
The College of Humanities is pleased to welcome new faculty for the upcoming academic year.
“These are outstanding scholars who represent the breadth and diversity of Humanities scholarship and teaching,” said Dorrance Dean Alain-Philippe Durand. “Their expertise in languages and cultures around the world will further our mission of graduating students equipped with the skills they need to succeed on the global job market.”
Lawrence N. Berlin, Director Center for English as a Second Language (CESL)
Lawrence N. Berlin is the incoming Director of the Center for English as a Second Language. An international educator and researcher, he holds a Ph.D. in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching from the University of Arizona, an M.A. in Foreign Languages from West Virginia University and a B.F.A. in Drama from New York University. Most recently, he has been working as an independent consulting professor based in Medellin, Colombia. From 2000-2017 he served as a Professor of TESOL at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago, serving successively as Coordinator of the English Language Program, Interdisciplinary Coordinator of the First-Year Experience Program, Chair of the Department of Anthropology, Linguistics, Philosophy, and TESOL, and then simultaneously as the Director of International Programs and Director of the School for the Advancement of English Language Learning, which he founded. From 2018 to 2021, he served as the Academic Director of Languages at EAFIT University in Medellin, Colombia, where he spearheaded the renovation of the curriculum and teaching method across 8 languages, and in 2022 he served as Senior English Language Specialist at the National Academy for Educational Management of the Ministry of Education in Dhaka, Bangladesh where he led the faculty of English language teacher trainers in the redesign of English language teacher training for secondary education across the country. He has demonstrated expertise in teacher training, program and project development and management, curriculum design and innovation, grant writing, and strategic planning, and presented and published widely on English language teaching, pragmatics, and political discourse analysis.
Colin Law, Visiting Lecturer Department of Religious Studies and Classics
Colin Law’s academic background in Religious Studies includes an M.A. from the University of Georgia and a Ph.D. from the University of Ottawa. Dr. Law’s research explores the intersections of religion, politics, culture, and civic space. His current project utilizes an interdisciplinary approach exploring U.S. history, American civil religion, symbolic representations of identity, and the contentious debates surrounding monuments and memorials. He is particularly interested in how civil and religious sacred sites construct cultural identities and practices. Additionally, he examines material religion, investigating how religious objects and artifacts influence religious beliefs and practices. Through Dr. Law’s research, he aims to uncover how space and place shape religious experiences and contribute to the broader understanding of cultural and religious dynamics.
Matthew M. Mars, Professor Department of Public and Applied Humanities
Matt Mars is an interdisciplinary scholar who teaches and writes about community innovation and the influence of market narratives on everyday life and routines. Prof. Mars’ research is published in a diverse range of journals that span sociology, marketing, community development, and higher education. Some examples of the journals he has published in include Community Development, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Higher Education, Marketing Theory , and Minerva . Prof. Mars’ current work explores the influence of visual narratives on the creation and identities of local consumption spaces, whether they be coffee shops, craft breweries, or farmers’ markets. Prof. Mars is currently the Co-Editor of Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth series (Emerald), Associate Editor of Community Development , and a member of the editorial board of Local Development & Society .
Prof. Mars has received multiple teaching awards and recognitions including being named Dorrance Scholarship Program Professor of Excellence in Teaching (2017-present), the USDA/APLU Excellence in College and University Teaching Award – Western Region (2020), and the APLU Innovative Teaching Award (2018).
Prof. Mars earned his PhD through the Center for the Study of Higher Education at The University of Arizona. He also holds an MEd in Counseling and Human Relations from Northern Arizona University and a BA in Sociology and Anthropology from Utica College of Syracuse University.
Victoria Meyer, Associate Professor of Practice Associate Director of Interdisciplinary Studies Program
Dr. Victoria N. Meyer is the incoming Associate Director of the Interdisciplinary Studies Program for the College of Humanities. She completed her undergraduate studies at the University of Arizona before earning her Ph.D. in history from the University of Virginia. For the past several years she has supported University of Arizona initiatives in the Near You Network and served as the Director of Distance Initiatives for the College of Humanities generally and for the Interdisciplinary Studies specifically. Her research and teaching interests cover the history of medicine and public health, gender and sexuality, health humanities, and the histories of the early modern world, and modern Europe.
And ré Pettman, Assistant Professor Department of French and Italian
Dr. André Pettman holds a Ph.D. in French from Columbia University (2024). He also holds an M.A. in French (2017) and B.A. degrees in French and Psychology (2016) from the University of Arizona. A specialist of contemporary French & Francophone literature, his research interests include critical theory, politics, film studies, and translation. His current book project examines twenty-first-century French literature as a site of radical political imagination. His book project questions the narrow political frameworks through which twenty-first-century French literature continues to be read and demonstrates how radical politics appear in unexpected ways in a period of literature sometimes reduced to the reactionary or the apolitical.
Dr. Pettman is also an active translator whose work focuses on Francophone literatures and cultures. He has co-translated, with Soraya Limare, Assia Djebar’s inaugural speech at l’Académie Française and is currently writing a critical introduction to accompany its publication. His articles and book reviews appear or are forthcoming in French Forum, Nottingham French Studies, Contemporary French and Francophone Studies: SITES, French Studies Bulletin, Modern Language Quarterly, and Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature , and an entry in the Dictionnaire Assia Djebar, edited by Maya Boutaghou & Anne Donadey (Paris: Honoré Champion). His translations have appeared in Yale French Studies and in the edited volume Hip Hop en français: An Exploration of Hip-Hop Culture in the Francophone World , edited by Alain-Philippe Durand (Rowman & Littlefield, 2020).
Veronika Williams, Assistant Professor of Practice Department of Russian and Slavic Studies
Veronika Williams is an educator, mentor, and event planner. Dr. Williams joined the Department of Russian and Slavic Studies as a Lecturer and Event and Recruitment Coordinator in 2020 after working with international students at the Center of English as a Second Language. Dr. Williams received her Ph.D. in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching in 2016 and her MA in Russian Studies in 2010 from the University of Arizona.
Dr. Williams’ primary research focuses on language pedagogy, in particular learner autonomy and language learning strategies. Other areas of interest include methodology in Russian language teaching, intercultural competence, and intersection of Russian language and culture. Currently, Dr. Williams is exploring the connections between Russian rap and politics.
Sarah Matthews, Visiting Lecturer Department of Russian and Slavic Studies
Sarah Matthews is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures at the University of Southern California. Her dissertation compares the poetry of Vladislav Khodasevich and T.S. Eliot in the context of European Modernism. She argues that their poetry is a unique lens to reexamine and redefine the relation of the material and the metaphysical. At the University of Southern California, she was awarded the Teresa Wilson Endowed Fellowship for her dissertation and the Teaching Excellence Award for Assistant Lecturers from the Center of Languages and Cultures for her work as an instructor of the Russian language. She is passionate about teaching Slavic language and cultural courses. Ms. Matthews earned her master’s degree in Slavic Languages and Literatures from the University of Southern California in 2021 and two bachelor’s degrees in Russian and English from Brigham Young University in 2019. Her current research interests include Russian poetry, Polish poetry, English poetry, Modernism, ecopoetry, environmental humanities, comparative literature, formalism, structuralism, and religion.
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Interpretive approach: Discourse analysis is an interpretive approach, meaning that it seeks to understand the meaning and significance of language use from the perspective of the participants in a particular discourse. Emphasis on reflexivity: Discourse analysis emphasizes the importance of reflexivity, or self-awareness, in the research process.
Critical discourse analysis (or discourse analysis) is a research method for studying written or spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real life situations. When you conduct discourse analysis, you might focus on: The purposes and effects of different types of language.
As Wodak and Krzyżanowski (2008) put it: "discourse analysis provides a general framework to problem-oriented social research". Basically, discourse analysis is used to conduct research on the use of language in context in a wide variety of social problems (i.e., issues in society that affect individuals negatively).
An Introduction & Guide. Discourse analysis is a qualitative research method for studying "language in context.". [1] The process goes beyond analyzing words and sentences, establishing a deeper context about how language is used to engage in actions and form social identity. In Gee's (2011) view, language is always used from a ...
Abstract. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a qualitative analytical approach for critically describing, interpreting, and explaining the ways in which discourses construct, maintain, and legitimize social inequalities. CDA rests on the notion that the way we use language is purposeful, regardless of whether discursive choices are conscious ...
There are various methods to conduct discourse analysis, but we are discussing the most basic method below. Step1: Develop a Research Question. Like any other research in discourse analysis, it's essential to have a research question to proceed with your study. After selecting your research question, you need to find out the relevant ...
Discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies, is an approach to the analysis of written, spoken, or sign language, including any significant semiotic event. The objects of discourse analysis ( discourse , writing, conversation, communicative event ) are variously defined in terms of coherent sequences of sentences , propositions , speech , or ...
Needless to say, the views ex pressed in this report are ours. 3. Discourse Analysis: Varieties and Methods. Abstract. This paper presents and analyses six key approac hes to discourse analysis ...
Qualitative researchers have developed a wide range of methods of analysis to make sense of textual data, one of the most common forms of data used in qualitative research (Attride-Stirling, 2001; Cho & Trent, 2006; Stenvoll & Svensson, 2011).As a result, qualitative text and discourse analysis (QTDA) has become a thriving methodological space characterized by the diversity of its approaches ...
Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method is a systematic introduction to discourse analysis as a body of theories and methods for social research. It brings together three central approaches, Laclau and Mouffe's discourse theory, critical discourse analysis and discursive psychology, in order to establish a dialogue between different forms of ...
Discourse Analysis (DA) can be approached through qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods, depending on the research objectives, the nature of the data, and the theoretical framework adopted. Understanding these different approaches and how they can be integrated provides a comprehensive toolkit for researchers in the field.
Abstract. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a social scientific theory and method for analyzing and critiquing the use of language and its contribution to forming and sustaining social practice and for analysis of how language can contribute to reproducing or transforming social problems. CDA adopts the position that the analysis of how ...
A New Research Agenda in Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity , (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2005), pp. 19-51. Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax .
Sage Research Methods Video - An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. This visualization demonstrates how methods are related and connects users to relevant content. Find step-by-step guidance to complete your research project. Answer a handful of multiple-choice questions to see which statistical method is best for your data.
Whilst discourse analysis is embedded within a wide constructivist theoretical framework, the analytical approach applied will vary according to the epistemological context of the research. Discourse analysis methods are employed within a wide range of fields however are commonly used within linguistics, sociology, anthropology, education, and ...
discourse analysis is a method for the analysis of connected speech or. writing, for continuing descriptive linguistics beyond the limit of a simple. sentence at a time (Harris 1952). Meanwhile ...
Discourse analysis is a qualitative research method used to study written and spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real-life situations. It goes beyond analyzing just the words and sentences to establish a deeper understanding of how language is used.
Discourse analysis is a research method for studying written or spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real-life situations. When you do discourse analysis, you might focus on: The purposes and effects of different types of language; Cultural rules and conventions in communication
Discourse Analysis - Research Methods Handbook. 4 Discourse Analysis. Discourse analysis is a qualitative analysis approach for studying language about its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real-life situations. Discourse analysis investigates the purposes and effects of different types of language, cultural rules ...
How to conduct discourse analysis. Discourse analysis, as in all other qualitative methods, is used depending on the research topic and question(s) or aim(s). The following steps are recommended: Step 1: Have a clearly defined topic and research question, because this informs the types of research materials that will be used.
Qualitative research often focuses on what people say: be that in interviews, focus-groups, diaries, social media or documents. Qualitative researchers often try to understand the world by listening to how people talk, but it can be really revealing to look at not just what people say, but how. Essentially this is the how discourse analysis (DA ...
'Very clear, comprehensive, yet concise'. `This well-written book is a must for scholars embarking on discourse analysis - it is as valuable to health scientists as it is to social scientists. It translates the dense writings on this topic into a workable research method, and shows the exciting possibilities of an approach that helps us to ...
The Oxford English Dictionary defines discourse analysis as: "Linguistics, a method of analysing the structure of texts or utterances longer than one sentence, taking into account both their linguistic content and their sociolinguistic context; analysis performed using this method." There is a problem, however, not with the wording of this ...
Her research and teaching interests cover the history of medicine and public health, gender and sexuality, health humanities, and the histories of the early modern world, and modern Europe. Image André Pettman, Assistant ProfessorDepartment of French and Italian Dr. André Pettman holds a Ph.D. in French from Columbia University (2024).