Qualitative Data Analysis II: Discourse and narrative analysis

Week 15Social Research Methods

Lecture Outline

• Introduction• Discourse analysis, the theoretical background • Focus: discourse analysis associated with post-structuralist

theory and cultural studies• Doing discourse analysis

– Issues/starting points– Data collection– Tools of analysis

• Narrative analysis• Seminar Preparation

Introduction

• Focus on forms of qualitative analysis that are associated with post-structuralism and the ‘linguistic turn’:– discourse analysis (main focus this week)– narrative analysis

• Both approaches can be used to analyse a wide range of qualitative research ‘data’.

• Still relates to the ‘common activity’ in qualitative analysis of looking for themes, etc., but more specific in method/approach to analysis.

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Different theoretical concepts of discourse

• Positivist/empiricist– discourses are best viewed as ‘frames’ or cognitive

schemata’, ‘the conscious strategic efforts by groups of people to fashion shared understandings’

• Structuralist linguistics (Saussure)– Difference between statement/text and

language/grammar/rules of formation of text• Speech act philosophy (Wittgenstein, Austin)– Words do not simply represent the world, they

constitute that worldSee Howarth (2000) ‘Introduction’ in Discourse (Available on course extracts)

Different theoretical concepts of discourse

• Realist accounts– stresses the underlying ‘material resources which make discourses possible’– argues that the ‘study of the dynamics which structure texts has to be

located in an account of the ways discourses reproduce and transform the material world’

• Marxist accounts– share underlying epistemological/ontological assumptions of realism– discourses are viewed as ideological systems of meanings that obfuscate

and naturalize uneven distributions of power and resources– discourse analysis exposes mechanisms by which this deception operations

and proposes emancipatory alternatives• Gramsci: hegemony, contestation, co-option• Althusser: ideological state apparatus, interpellation (representations call subjects

into being)

Different theoretical concepts of discourse

• Norman Fairclough’s school of ‘critical discourse analysis’ – combines works of Gramsci, Bakhtin, Althusser, Foucault,

Giddens and Habermas– greater role for human meaning and understanding than

with positivist, realist, and Marxist accounts– uses Giddens’ theory of structuration, the theme of the

‘duality of social structure and human agency’ – discourse analysis examines the dialectical relationship

between structure and agency to expose the ways in which discourse is used by the powerful to deceive and oppress the dominated

Different theoretical concepts of discourse

• Post-structuralists and Cultural Studies/ post-Marxists (the focus of this week’s lecture)– Derrida, Foucault, Laclau and Mouffe, Butler; Birmingham

School of Cultural Studies: Hall, Gilroy, McRobbie...– More comprehensive concepts of discourse than

hermeneutical emphasis on social meaning (e.g. Fairclough) or realist/Marxist approaches

– Regard social structures as inherently ambiguous, incomplete and contingent systems of meanings

– Placing power relations at the centre of analysis

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (POST-STRUCTURALIST AND CULTURAL STUDIES)

Discourse analysis

• Researching the systems of representation, articulation and meaning that constitute the social world

• Study of shared sites of representation/statements– Public documents, texts, media outputs, films, books, legal proceedings, medical

guidance, self-help books, speech.

• Study of the rule of formation of representation; the language that make statements possible; the grammar; the underlying assumptions: DISCOURSE

Discourses are general rules, statements take place within discourses. We look at numerous statements as a way of finding out about the underlying discourse.

Discourse and the making of social life

• Discourse• Not simply a means of expression• The conditions of our thinking, speaking, seeing selves;

making actions possible

• ‘A discourse constitutes ways of acting in the world, as well as a description of it. It both opens up and closes down possibilities for action for ourselves’.

• Levitas (2005, p3) The Inclusive Society

Discourse and the making of social life

What is the social made of?

Institutions, Conventions

Economics, Combined resources

Objects, Possessions

Spaces, Buildings,

Architecture

Words, Text, Representation

(discourse)

Discourse and the making of social life

Representation, Words, Texts,

Images

Expressing ourselves to

others, creating a

shared world

Constituting selves

Constituting possibilities of

thought

Constituting abilities to act

in common

There is no ‘I’ outside of discourse, which gives intelligibility to that term.Butler (1990) Gender Trouble

Derrida, difference and deconstruction

Language operates through distinction and comparisonI = not you

Categories of difference are always hierarchical Black/White; Man/Woman; Animal/Man; Unemployed/Worker

Categories are not neutral description, they imply hierarchies and judgment

• ‘The Other’ – what the (fantasised) self is not– Romanticising, denigrating, pacifying visions– E.g. the orient contra the occident (Said Orientalism)

Foucault and disciplinary power/knowledge

• Truths (including scientific, objective truths) are historically constructed – ‘regimes of truth’; power/knowledge; discourse

• Discourses – Are the outcome of power struggles– Produce subjects– Normalise (discipline) or regularise subjects

• Normalising discourse– People studying, describing and classifying ‘abnormal’ practices and

‘dangerous’ individuals; the disciplinary gaze; normalising power– E.g. Classification and discipline of sexual behaviours in 19th C

Doing discourse analysis* (what’s the point?)

• Discourse analysis is always addressed to power relations

• Deconstruction or revealing under-lying assumptions/discourse - making discursive power visible

• Weaken the emotional grip of discursive power

• Enable and encourage people to question taken for granted assumptions and to take responsibility for their judgments and classification practices

• Fostering reflexivity and critique* This relates to discourse analysis associated with post-structuralist theory and cultural studies; there are other theories and methods of doing discourse analysis which students may follow up on (these have varying degrees of similarity and difference)

Doing discourse analysis (practical steps)

• The Starting Point: an issue

• Data collection: gathering statements/texts/documents

• Analysis: interpretation and critique

Doing discourse analysis

1) The starting point: an issue

– Either a power relationship that you want to explore and deconstruct in a discursive context

– E.g. How is class power perpetuated in the UK media;? Is international development discourse participating in Islamaphobia?

– Or a discursive event that you want to interrogate; you’ve identified a new or transformed discourse and you want to ask - what are the implications of this discourse for power relations?

– E.g. A critical interrogation of the ‘addiction to spending’ discourse on the current financial crisis

Doing discourse analysis2) Data collection

• Gathering ‘statements’, texts, images, films, symbols– E.g. Collecting newspaper articles on a given topic (such as the

financial crisis) or mentioning a given group of people (such as ‘unemployed’ people)

– Set parameters for data collection – e.g. select two newspapers to look at over a specific time period; use ‘key terms’, ‘themes’ or ‘tropes’ to select relevant material

• AND developing your own powers of interpretation and critique – Read around the topic, find different perspectives on the topic (things

written at different times, things voicing different perspectives)– Improving your ability to think differently about the issue and to ‘see

beyond’ and identify the normal(ising) assumptions

Doing discourse analysis3) Analysis: interpretation and critique• Identifying implicit assumptions; describing and challenging the power

relations, hierarchies, and (mis)representations implied by those assumptions; identifying the discourse

Classification practices • Generalisation e.g. ‘Chav’; Muslim • Hierarchical/judgmental terms e.g. ‘unemployed’ Articulation• Terms articulated to other terms, drawing problematic parallels e.g.

poor=childOthering• Denigrating characterisation of particular groups as opposite of an

idealised image of ‘the self’/dominant cultureNormalisation• Describing ‘types’ of people as abnormal, dangerous, threatening

NARRATIVE ANALYSIS

Narrative analysis

• Narrative analysis is primarily concerned with ‘the ways in which people make and use stories to interpret the world, and their place within in’ (Lawler, 2002, ‘Narrative in Social Research’, p. 242).

• Narrative analysis focuses on the ways that speakers deploy story-telling devices, including plot-lines, points of transformation, action, characters, and a point or a message.

Key assumptions of narrative analysis*

• Stories are an important means through which we communicate with one another and with ourselves (one way of eliciting stories is through interviews)

• The dynamic and messy nature of data; meaning is contextual and constructed

• Importance of temporal framing

*These key assumptions on narrative analysis are based on a lecture by Molly Andrews, Centre for Narrative Research, NOVELLA, given at the ESRC Social Sciences Methods Festival in Oxford, April 2012*

Assumption 1: Orienting towards storiesYou know everything is not an anecdote. You have to discriminate. You choose things that are funny or mildly amusing or interesting. You're a miracle! Your stories have NONE of that. ...And by the way, you know, when you're telling these little stories? Here's a good idea - have a POINT. It makes it SO much more interesting for the listener!

Neal (Steven Martin) and Del ( John Candy) in ‘Planes, Trains and Automobiles’

• Starting point is that there is something intrinsically useful/interesting about stories

• Stories are told in interviews spontaneously and when they are elicited; sometimes when they are elicited they are not told

• Stories DO something; they have a purpose• Stories are almost always subjectively true• Stories are always in relation to other stories– Micro/macro narratives– Counter-narratives

Assumption 2:Dynamic and messy nature of data

• Invariable, meaning changes over time. Data cannot be captured in pure form, even on transcripts, as the same words mean something different across time and place

• Subjective truth is important• Meaning is contextual and constructed/

negotiated

Assumption 3: The importance of temporal framing

• Where does the story begin and end?• What does this temporal framing bring into

focus? Obscure? Who is included? Who is absent?

• When is the story being told in relation to when it happened? Is the comparison of the temporal perspective explicit? Implied? (e.g. the self I once was, the self I could have been, the self I dream of becoming?)

Conclusion

• Both discourse analysis and narrative analysis share an interest in ways that language is used by speakers and writers in their constructions of particular worldviews.

• There are a number of different ways of doing discourse and narrative analysis, depending on methodological, theoretical, and disciplinary starting points; review Seale et al reader, recommended readings, & supplementary powerpoint slides for further perspectives.

Seminar Preparation

• Thinking and planning– In the seminar you will be doing discourse analysis– Be prepared to suggest a topic/issue to analyse– Bring a laptop so that you can search for materials

OR a pile of newspapers/magazines

In-depth discourse analysis readings: see recommended readings (CE)

• Howarth Reading (available on course extracts)– A brief history of discourse analysis and a defence of post-

structuralist discourse theory. Useful background explaining that the term is used in lots of different ways. Skim read and keep for future reference.

• Hall Reading (available on course extracts)– Example of politically engaged discourse analysis discussing racism in

the media and an anti-racist TV programme. Written in early 1980s but there are many parallels with the current political moment

– Read in detail for a fine example of interpretation and critique and for distinction between the intentions behind statements and discursive power