Transcript Qualitative Research Design

Analytic process: 4 stages
‘Giving a voice’
Stage 1: applies specifically to interview data, retell story
with eye to empathy & empowerment.


Generation of categories

Thematic analyses

Discourse analysis
Stage 4: Discourse Analysis
Discourses = sets of statements which construct
an object (any category of thing or person that is spoken
about by an interviewee)
Variability; construction; function
- how language changes, how it works, how it is
put together.
Definition (Ruth Wodak )
(Greek v) Ana-lyein ‘deconstruct’
(Latin v) Discurrere ‘running back & forth’

DA penetrated many disciplines, distinct meanings in each
of these:
from a social science methodology to the label for a whole field,
a subdiscipline of linguistics, a critical paradigm…
A particular uptake of the ideas within psychology,
mostly DP in social psychology.
Discursive Psychology
The set of social constructionist approaches within social
psychology mainly (Potter, Wetherall, Billig)


share views on language and subjectivity
also the very important aim of ‘carrying out critical
research
‘to investigate and analyse power relations in society and to
formulate normative practices from which a critique of such
social relations can be made with an eye on the possibilities
for social change’ (Philips & Jorgensen).

No single definition of DA as a research method - can be characterized as a
way of approaching and thinking about a problem.

a manner of questioning the basic assumptions of research methods, enables
access to the ontological and epistemological assumptions behind a project, a
statement, a method of research.

Every text is conditioned and inscribes itself within a given discourse, thus
the term Discourse Analysis.

Will not provide absolute answers to a specific problem, but enable us to
understand the conditions behind a specific "problem" and make us realize
that the essence of that "problem", and its resolution, lie in its assumptions;
the very assumptions that enable the existence of that "problem".

No longer a marginal perspective, for an
increasing number of academics discourse
analysis is the main way of doing social
psychological research (LSE, Cambridge, Loughborough).

Also a proliferation of forms of discourse
analysis - from CA to post-structural and
Foucauldian thinking.
1st focus – language & what it does on the world
Then divides into various traditions
 Analyst must go beyond the data itself –
interpret by appeal to a theory (about society,
power, culture…)
 How does speaker’s choice of words ‘construct’
a social object?

2 basic DA principles
1.
One of language’s functions is to do things at
the societal level (above interpersonal)
It is constitutive (e.g., the law)
It promotes someone’s or some group’s interests.
2.
People use discourse practices to do these things.
To investigate a social phenomenon, find identifiable set of things
that go together…
particular words, phrases, terms of reference, metaphors, rhetorical
styles … which together construct the social object, e.g.,
‘science’ ‘homosexuality’, ‘muslim’.
Constructed by discourse’s choice of description & associations it
explicity makes
Muslim vs Islamic; fundamentalist vs devout; …
Method: some examples



Linguistic features: choice of grammatical form
is a discursive practice (Kress)
Identification of repetoires: a more or less
coherent way of describing something –
scientists empiricism & contingency (Gilbert &
Mulkay 1990)
Sensitivity to context (Potter & Wetherell) - see
what things people say mean in context,
contradictions etc.
Antaki, Billig, Edwards & Potter
2006


Identify things that might superficially give the
appearance of conducting discourse analysis but
do not in fact do so.
Burman - list of ‘mistakes and errors’ actually
highlight with particular clarity ideological as
well as conceptual and methodological features
of the discipline.
6 non-analyses.
1. Under-analysis through summary
2. Under–analysis through taking sides
3. Under-analysis through over quotation or
through isolated quotation.
4. Circular identification of discourses and mental
constructs
5. False survey
6. Analysis that consists in simply spotting
features.
Burman (commenting on Antaki
et al. )

Elaborates




Under-analysis occurs when the analysis substitutes detailed
examination of the text for the adoption of a theorized
position.
A way out of circular reasoning would be to elaborate the
analysis or categories to relate to structures outside the detail
of the text, e.g., via analyses of institutional practices and
systemic patternings.
Proper analyses should also include consulting theoretical
analyses of a historical and cultural kind that inform how
such conversational moves come to be possible and how they
function.
Don’t stop at what they say, ask why?
3 further points to add to Antaki’s
6:

Under-analysis through decontextualisation

Under-analysis through uncontested readings

Under-analysis through not having a question

DA is a form of action rather than of reflection
Not only does doing discourse analysis mean doing
analysis BUT discourse analysis means analyzing
discourse.
Must have a theory of discourse (or text or transcript) as
well as of analysis to do discourse analysis - and this
also includes having an analysis of the technologies of
one’s own analysis.

van Dijk (1997)
An analysis of discourse is a scholarly analysis only
when it is based on more or less explicit concerns,
methods or theories. Merely making “common
sense” comments on a piece of text or talk will
seldom suffice in such a case. Indeed, the whole
point should be to provide insights into structure,
strategies or other properties of discourse that could
not readily be given by naïve recipients. (p. 1)
Levels of (discourse)analysis?



Where to draw the boundaries? Or what should
be included? The linguistic, social, political,
historical, material, institutional … ?
What is discursive and what counts as extradiscursive? (Willig’s paper on critical realism in
DA)
What is context?
Step by step


Read through the data a number of times until you
become familiar with it. What leaps out as you read
through the transcript? Think about what is ‘going
on’ in the talk; what sort of ‘business’ are the
speakers/writers involved in (e.g. blaming, justifying,
describing, etc)?
Ask yourself ‘why this word, why now?’ (Try mentally
replacing words with others to see how the
construction changes; such as ‘this young girl’ to ‘this
young woman’). Is the narrative structure of the text
important? How does the constructed meaning of
the talk/text change as the words change?



Look for ‘discursive devices’ such as 3-part lists,
extreme case formulations, etc. What are these ‘doing’?
What psychological business are they attending to?
Start to think about possible themes or research
questions that you could use to focus your analysis.
These can be very simple, such as ‘how are categories
used to manage identity?’ or ‘how are issues of blame
and accountability dealt with in the text?’
Note down anything at all that interests you – work on
your intuitive hunches - and list your ideas down the
margins of the transcript.


Once you’ve gone through the transcript in this
way, do it again! Then start to make more
detailed notes, relating to your theme or research
question.
If writing up the analysis, this is where you will
need to draw on links to other discursive work
on identity to help support your analysis.
Discursive strategies

Extreme case formulations


Not referring to underlying emotional states, but as a resource for holding
others accountable, and useful for setting up rhetorical contrasts (e.g.
versus ‘rational’).
‘Active voicing’


Using words like ‘very’ or ‘the worst’ strengthen an argument or account.
Can also be treated ironically.
Emotion categories


What they may be doing
This is when speakers report the words of others as if they were spoken
directly. Used to add authenticity and credibility.
Script formulations

Formulating an action as routine or usual – does ‘being normal’.

Assessments & second assessments:


Affect displays


Using ‘I’, ‘we’, ‘you’, etc. Used to distance or align oneself with others.
Detail in narrative/generic vagueness


E.g. sighing, crying, sniffing – often these are organised alongside talk;
not separate to interaction.
Pronoun use and footing


These are usually organised in preference terms (i.e. agree with someone
as preferable for smooth interaction).
Often used to make accounts more plausible. Vagueness can be used as a
distancing tool (i.e. ‘this is not my story...’)
3-part lists

These are common in much talk and esp. in political speeches – adds
credibility and authenticity.
Sample ‘analysis’ section of
report
The following is an example of how you might begin to write up
and structure the ‘analysis’ section of a DA report
(often call this ‘analysis’ rather than ‘findings’ or ‘results’ because the latter
two suggest a more objective, quantitative style stance on the data).
The important thing to note is that author should properly
contextualize, present and report on the data, and that it should
go beyond merely re-describing what someone else has said.
Analysis
 The analysis of the Panorama interview revealed three themes:
the construction of a ‘normal’ identity, the negotiation of blame,
and the construction of ‘others’. ….
Constructing a ‘normal’ identity
One of the main ways in which identity was constructed within the interview was that of Diana as
being an ordinary, ‘normal’ person. In extract 1 below, Diana is talking about her self-harming
behaviour during her depression.
Extract 1
Bashir:
it was suggested that it was around this time
things became so difficult that you actually
tried to injure yourself
Diana:
mmm
Bashir:
is that true
Diana:
mmm when no one listens to you or you feel
no one’s listening to you all sorts of things
start to happen for instance you have so
much pain inside yourself that you try and
hurt yourself on the outside cos you want
help but it’s the wrong kind of help you’re
asking for


Admitting to self-harming would be problematic for
Diana as a member of the royal family. She doesn’t
directly answer the question (line 5) but answers using
the generic ‘you’; this allows her to maintain a rhetorical
distance from what she has said (i.e. it may or may not
apply to her) and enables her to identify with the
audience.
Talking in this way also constructs her as a normal
person with normal feelings and emotions. She could
be anyone; there is nothing about her role as Princess
that might have caused her to self-harm…



Chapter in Willig
Willig et al. 2007 Theory & Psychology paper
for Critical Discourse Analysis
Wetherell, M. et a. (2001) (Eds.). Discourse
Theory & Practice. Sage