Teaching Discourse Analysis

Bill Fear

Cardiff Business School

fearwj@cf.ac.uk

07891469869

Research methods contribute to employability

• Not only numeracy and technical capability but also understanding and

managing expectations and communication with others

• Contribute to making sense of the world and managing that world

• Discourse analysis, or organizational discourse analysis is particularly

relevant for the world of work and business

(Also particularly relevant for healthcare...science...)

• The skill of discourse analysis is portable and transferable and can be

equally applied to numerical data

• Important in areas such as accounting and finance

• Important when reporting to the board

• Important to incorporate examples from the real world and areas where we

might apply this rather than limiting it to Academic research

Why do Discourse Analysis?

• We want to understand the shared reality of our social world and how we

bring this world into being.

• We reach this understanding by analysing the process through which we

construct this shared reality.

• The process is reliant on discourse, and discourse is inscribed in text.

• Organizational Discourse analysis is the analysis of the production,

distribution, and consumption of texts.

• ODA can be considered the study of language and texts in relation to the

construction of the social world/reality. ‘Objects’ such as social institutions

and taken for granted ways of behaving are bought into question – they are

problematized. In Critical studies/methods there is a focus on

‘improvement’.

Why do we analyse discourse?

• We analyse discourse to examine how meaning is constructed and to draw

attention to taken for granted meanings. We show that individuals perpetuate

these meanings often without realising it, and we show how these meanings

affect practices, activities and the experiences of individuals. Its like therapy on

a grand scale one step removed.

• How do we approach the analysis

• We consider: concepts and their relationship to people, entities and events which

in turn produce an object with a meaning; subject positions that warrant voice;

and conditions of possibility – certain outcomes are made more likely than

others.

• Discourse analysis is the study of change or development or the bringing into

being of a social reality. This happens through the production, distribution and

consumption of texts. But when texts are taken up and consumed they are

inevitably translated in some way and the meanings are transformed.

What is discourse?

Discourse is a network of relations between objects. Texts are objects. Discourse is an inter-

related body of texts. Texts are symbolic expressions that are inscribed by being spoken,

written, or depicted in some way (Taylor & Van Every, 1993: 108), making them “accessible to

others” (Taylor et al, 1996: 7). Thus a discourse is an inter-related body of texts that bring so-

called “reality” into being. Discourse analysis is the study of language and texts in relation to

the construction of social reality.

These discourses are not neutral. They have an impact as they allow us to talk about things

in certain ways and create subject positions which are allowed to talk about topics and ideas

in particular forums. The discourse constrains the discussion and interaction between people

– what is allowed and what is not allowed. However, although discourses are hard to resist

and become taken for granted they have to be held in place.

Consider, for example, current austerity politics in the EU. It seems to make sense and yet

sovereign states are resisting the discourse. The resistance to the discourse of austerity is

equally seductive and equally has to be held in place.

Discourse

• Need to recognise that discourse in definition and form is not fixed

• Michael Stubbs (1983) observed, “Anything at all that is written on discourse analysis is partial and controversial” (p. 12).

• Nonetheless, talk and text are the central medium of social science research:

• Interviews• Focus groups• Observation• Documents/reports• Questionnaires (eg. How questions are phrased)

• Hence we need to know how to analyse it…

• “Qualitative research starts from and returns to words, talk, and texts as meaningful representations of concepts” (2004: 455). Academy of Management Journal 2009, Vol. 52, No. 5, 856–862.

• Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Discourse

Discourse’ ... refers to language in use, as a process which is socially situated.

However ... we may go on to discuss the constructive and dynamic role of either

spoken or written discourse in structuring areas of knowledge of the social and

institutional practices which are associated with them. In the sense, discourse is

a means of talking and writing about an acting upon worlds, a means which both

constructs and is constructed by a set of social practices within these worlds,

and in so doing both reproduces and constructs afresh particular social-

discursive practices, constraining or encouraged by more macro movements in

the overarching social formation. (Candlin 1997)

“the analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of language in use. As

such, it cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independent

from the purposes or functions which these forms are designed to serve in

human affairs.” (Brown and Yule 1983)

BUT schools of DA are contrasted between language representing reality

(language is a mirror that reflects reality but does not play a functional role) and

re-presenting reality (the use of language or present or share an aspect of

reality) and constructing reality (language is one of the primary means, if not the

primary means, by which we construct and create a social reality)

Organizational Discourse Analysis

• ODA is the study of organizations through DA. ODA makes use of the wider

concept of texts. ODA is the study of the production, distribution and

consumption of texts (and how this relates to something else – the object)

• [Loosely speaking] Texts and the related processes are the linked set of IVs

and the Object is the DV although these is not necessarily a causal link in

the positivist sense.

• Objects include institutions, identities, policy, subjectivities, and other

structures or things or patterns of ‘behaving’; e.g. leadership can be treated

as an object and we can look at discourses of leadership or the discourses

of leaders…

Framework

There is a a relatively simple approach which can be tailored as required and specific methods

incorporated. Their approach will be familiar as follows (note that this is iterative):

Develop a question

Select a site/case

Collect the data

Analyse the data

Construct a narrative

What we look for is

What we thought was one thing is actually another

Two things we thought were different are actually the same

Two things we thought were the same are actually different

Methods and approaches include conversation analysis, ethnomethodology, content analysis,

deconstruction, narrative analysis, intertextuality, and critical discourse analysis.

There is an interaction between the initial message or thread, the framework, and the

method as discourse analysis is dependent on the questions and the level at which we are

considering the discourse.

That is, if we are considering long term, social discourses that produce broad social

changes we might consider a Foucauldian Analysis whereas if we were interested in the

use of words in policy documents and their potential impact we might consider CDA. On

the other hand, we might also consider blending different methods and this is a legitimate

approach to Discourse Analysis.

Problems

Making it relevant – who cares about Foucault anyway...

At first it seems easy...

Distinguishing between causation and verisimilitude...(but using the concept of the IV and

DV is helpful...)

The Social Science ‘objects’ of ‘interest’ – level of abstraction – detracts from the worth in

the world in which we live and work

Benefits

Large number of accessible data sources

Wide range of topic areas/subjects for scrutiny

Link to practical concrete world

Method is only a tool

Need the right tool for the job

Need to know what the job is

No point in having a box of tools if you don’t know what to do with them, when to use

them, or how to use them

Examples from own work or from studies that show high relevance for the students

e.g. Political happenings in the world at the moment

Austerity

Banking crisis

Management by walking about

Etc.

What is the discourse of teaching RM is SocSci?

What are the:

meanings

Institutions

Culture

???

Difficult

Students aren’t interested

Weakness in quantitative methods – numeracy...

Highly abstracted focus on aspects of technical methodology...

Weakness in qualitative methods

Over theorized...??

...?

Can we/ should we address this discourse...? What difference will that make...?

foci of engagement—we can use language as a vehicle for analyzing and exploring

organizations and organizing (language as a means to an end) or treating organizations as

sites for language analysis (language as an end in itself);

• methods of engagement—there is a rich array of methodological alternatives available,

including conversation analysis, ethnomethodology, content analysis, deconstruction,

narrative analysis, intertextuality, and critical discourse analysis;

• levels of engagement—it is possible to think of analyses operating at different levels, ranging

from “micro” (e.g., discrete organizational episodes or conversations) through “meso” (e.g.,

broader patterns and networks of organizational interaction) to “macro” (e.g., grand narratives

and metadiscourses with wider social implications); and

• modes of engagement—we can interrogate organizations and organizing processes by

privileging monologic, dialogic, or polyphonic perspectives.

Vvvv

Successful and effective managers spend a lot of time using language and texts

All of these practices use texts and communication in particular is reliant on

texts and the sharing of a discourse.

The Relationship Between Action and

Discourse

Language, Text, and Context

DA and ODA are the study of language, text and context

Language is focal in the study of organizations since the so called ‘linguistic turn’ in organization and management studies. This is simply a term and does not imply a linguistic turn. Rather it was the consideration that language plays a dominant role in constituting our social reality. That is, we use language to construct our world.

Many schools of DA focus on the use of language – spoken and written - How language is used, from words and parts of speech through grammatical structures to ways of presenting arguments.

Examples include Conversational Analysis (CA), Discursive Psychology (Potter and Wetherell), the Montreal School, and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA; Fairclough)

When the focus is on language then language is the IV

Text and Context

Texts play an important role in DA and especially in ODA.

ODA has been defined as the study of the production, distribution and consumption of texts (Phillips, Lawrence and Hardy, 2004).

A text is something that can be read. It does not have to be a written text. The wider use of texts has long been recognised in disciplines such as advertising, marketing, and environmental psychology.

Ricoeur (1971) published a seminal paper on text. He pointed out that any event leaves a trace. These traces can be read as patterns. These patterns form a discourse. The discourse is inscribed in a text. Discourse in language ceases to exist unless it is inscribed in a text; memory, a pattern of actions, a document.

Once a text has been created it can, and will, be interpreted in ways other than intended by the author. This is saying that there are unintended consequences.

TEXT

DISCURSIVE PRACTICE

SOCIAL PRACTICE

Processes of text production, distribution & consumption

Social structures, power relations, material interests etc

Andrea Whittle, Cardiff Business School

Text and Context

The importance of texts is twofold. First, they are important in their own right as objects and can be used as objects. Second, texts contain discourses which can be analysed.

A text can contain multiple discourses.

Different levels of discourse are useful in terms of considering context - how we consider context is affected by the level at which we consider context.

Alvesson and Karrmean, (2000, 2004)

Alvesson, M. & Karreman, D. (2000) Varieties of Discourse: On the Study of Organizations through Discourse Analysis. Human Relations,53(9), 1125-1149

Alvesson and Kärreman (2000) provide useful distinction between:

Capital ‘D’ = Foucauldian notion of Discourse“general and prevalent systems for the formation and articulation of ideas in a particular period of time … functioning as a powerful ordering force” (p. 1126-7)“standardized ways of referring to/constituting a certain kind of phenomenon” (p. 1134)“forms of institutionalized intelligibility” (Wetherell, 1998: 394)

Lower-case ‘d’ = Close-range micro-interaction approaches eg. CA, Potter & Wetherell, which focus on how people actually use language, how people talk about things in conversations

Miller (1997: 34) describes Foucault-inspired work: ‘Whatever the form of the data, Foucauldian discourse studies involve treating the data as expressions of culturally standardised discourses that are associated with particular social settings’.

Methods…?

The ‘method’ of Discourse Analysis will depend on the stand taken initially in relation to DA and ODA

If we think about OB then DA is relevant right from the level of conversation through to the level of written documents (e.g. policy documents, strategy, corporate documents) as what DA tells us is that discourse is an IV for behavioural outcomes (the DV)

Schools of DA are contrasted between language representing reality (language is a mirror that reflects reality but does not play a functional role) and re-presenting reality (the use of language or present or share an aspect of reality) and constructing reality (language is one of the primary means, if not the primary means, by which we construct and create a social reality)

‘The theory and research challenge is to ascertain and trace the dialogue across fragmented discourses from the local into the situated social, historical, and economic contexts.’ Boje, Oswick and Ford (2004), LANGUAGE AND ORGANIZATION: THE DOING OF DISCOURSE, Academy of Management Review Vol. 29, No. 4, 571–577

Methods…?

foci of engagement—we can use language as a vehicle for analyzing and exploring

organizations and organizing (language as a means to an end) or treating

organizations as sites for language analysis (language as an end in itself);

• methods of engagement—there is a rich array of methodological alternatives

available, including conversation analysis, ethnomethodology, content analysis,

deconstruction, narrative analysis, intertextuality, and critical discourse analysis;

• levels of engagement—it is possible to think of analyses operating at different

levels, ranging from “micro” (e.g., discrete organizational episodes or conversations)

through “meso” (e.g., broader patterns and networks of organizational interaction)

to “macro” (e.g., grand narratives and metadiscourses with wider social

implications); and

• modes of engagement—we can interrogate organizations and organizing

processes by privileging monologic, dialogic, or polyphonic perspectives.

Some Methods Andrea Whittle Cardiff Business School

Contrasting views

Contrast between language representing reality (language is a mirror that reflects reality but does not play a functional role) and re-presenting reality (the use of language or present or share an aspect of reality) and constructing reality (language is one of the primary means, if not the primary means, by which we construct and create a social reality)

Recently ODA has come to prominence in the field of organizational change. This has helped throw some of the approaches in views into contrast.

Heracleous and Barrett. Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of IT implementation

Conclusions

A discourse is a network of relations between objects – it is: how one thing is defined and recognised relative to another thing; how artefacts/objects are used; understanding of meaning and the role and use of meanings…

It is Relativist perspective and a Social Constructionist perspective – contrasted to a Neo-Positivist/Critical Realist and/or Essentialist ontology

The social world, the reality we live in, is constantly constructed and reconstructed and does not have a fixed state.

That doesn’t mean we can’t use DA to study what are assumed to fixed objects by other ontologies – e.g. Institutions, identities, Organizations, Subjectivities, Policy, and so on.

But we should appreciate the pre-requisite variety. We need to remember that we are not demonstrating causal links, even though we can talk about IVs and DVs.

(1) Realist Analysis

(2) Content Analysis

(3) Critical Discourse Analysis

(4) Foucauldian Analysis

“Power comes from below, that is, there is no binary and all-encompassing opposition between rulers and ruled at the root of power relations, and serving as a general matrix -no such duality extending from the top down...” (Foucault, 1979: 94)

(5) Interpretative Repertoires

Definitions of IR

“…recurrently used systems of terms for characterizing and evaluating actions, events, or other phenomena”

(Potter & Wetherell, 1987: 149)

“…broadly discernable clusters of terms, descriptions and figures of speech often assembled around metaphors or vivid images”

(Wetherell & Potter, 1992: 90)

“…a culturally familiar and habitual line of argument comprised of recognizable themes, common places and tropes”

(Wetherell, 1998: 400)

“…clusters of terms organized around a central metaphor, often used with grammatical regularity [that are] flexibly drawn on to perform different actions”

(Wiggins & Potter, 2008: 74)

(6) Conversational Analysis

(7) Narrative Analysis

DISCOURSE AND INSTITUTIONS

NELSON PHILLIPS

University of Cambridge

THOMAS B. LAWRENCE

Simon Fraser University

CYNTHIA HARDY

Academy of Management Review

2004, Vol. 29, No. 4, 635–652.

Alvesson and Karreman, 2011, Decolonialising discourse: Critical Reflections on

organizational discourse analysis, Human Relations