# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Discourse Theories

Within discourse theory, one can distinguish between at least three strands: post-structuralist, normative-deliberative and critical-realist discourse theories.

*

Post-structuralist discourse theory usually insists on the constitutive role of language and communication for what counts as real in a given society. Thus, if the 'speaking subject' is seen as an effect of discursive practices, discourse not only describes but to a certain degree also constitutes the social. Rather than as a closed container, the social is perceived as an open, dynamic and heterogeneous terrain of relationships. Following Saussure's primacy of difference over identity or Wittgenstein's practical turn in social theory, post-structuralist discourse theory adopts a resolutely antiessentialist stance which emphasizes the contingent character of reality and nature constructed through practices involving both power and knowledge. While a first wave of post-structuralist discourse theory, among which Michel Foucault (1972) and Michel Pêcheux (1982), helped to constitute Discourse Studies in France, a second wave, also known as ( French) Theory, resulted from the reception of 'Continental' thinkers (i.e., mainly from France such as Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, Louis Althusser, Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari and to a lesser degree from Germany such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Walter Benjamin, Martin Heidegger, Theodor W. Adorno) in the Anglo-American world, where it has contributed to the formation of cultural studies (Hall, 2003), postcolonialism (Spivak, 1988; Said, 1978), the theory of hegemony (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985), queer studies (Butler, 1990), and psychoanalytical theory (Žižek, 1989).

*

For normative-deliberative theories, discourse designates the negotiation of an agreement between participants who enter discourse in order to overcome a conflict while pursuing certain interests and objectives. Discourse in this sense usually involves free deliberation in the public sphere over what can be considered good and acceptable for all. According to this perception, the discourse participants need to come to terms with clashing norms in discourse. For the 'strong' program of normative-deliberative discourse theory, spelled out by third-generation critical theorists such as Jürgen Habermas (1985), certain communicative laws and normative standards are inherent in discourse which make certain claims more true, rational, and acceptable, whatever the social or political resources of those who make them. Weaker versions are typically critical of the universalism of the strong program and reject the idea of a normative point zero in discourse. They see hierarchies of values as discursive constructions of those who are concerned with social and political problems or as a contingent result of the communicative operations in an autopoietic system. Thus, Lyotard insists on certain unresolvable tensions and contradictions ( différend) in discourse that can make rational agreement impossible (1983).

*

While post-structuralist and normative-deliberative discourse theorists are firmly situated within the constructivist social sciences and humanities, some discourse theorists, who have defended a moderate realism, consider discourse to be a social practice embedded in given power structures. In this way, critical realist discourse theorists point to the objective social constraints in which discursive practices are embedded. Through discourse, unequal relationships are produced and reproduced between larger social groups, classes, or communities. Critical realist discourse theories usually have an affinity with macrosociological theories of social and cultural inequality, ranging from the Marxist critique of ideology to Pierre Bourdieu's work on symbolic domination. In drawing from critical realist discourse theory, linguists have become interested in social problems in critical discourse analysis (CDA) (Fairclough, 1992), while Marxist sociologists (Sum and Jessop, 2013) have discovered discourse to be a constitutive dimension in the dynamics of social power.

While the common denominator of these ideal typical strands of discourse theory is the central role of language, communication, or meaning in social, political, and cultural theory, the line is not always easy to draw (Angermuller et al., 2014a). Thus, weaker versions of normative-deliberative discourse theories have often been associated with post-structuralism while Foucault's power/knowledge approach has been claimed by both post-structuralists and critical realists. The critical potential has been spelled out in all of these approaches, albeit in different ways: if the post-structuralist gesture is more epistemological, aiming at a subversive decentring of identities and 'naturalized' power, normative-deliberative discourse theories focus on the critical tensions between how discourses should operate and how they actually do operate. Critical realism, finally, reveals the power structures hidden as it were beneath the representations produced in discourse.

In a word, discourse theories often articulate three problems: power, knowledge, and subjectivity, these are, visualized below in the discourse theory triangle. Accordingly, discourse is shaped by power structures but by representing power structures it can also contribute to objectifying and constituting them. As a socially-situated activity of producing meaning, discourse produces, establishes, and legitimizes knowledge in social groups and communities. And discourse is crucial for the construction of subjectivity as it defines, identities, and creates actorhood by attributing places and positions to those who enter discourse.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080970868032165

The Discursive Turn

Social constructionist theorisation of housing questions and problems reflected shifts in wider social scientific debates about the role of language and representation in social processes. During the 1990s particular social scientific effort was dedicated to comprehending the role of 'discourse' in mediating social power. Discourse theory itself has a diverse intellectual lineage which can be traced to three strands of earlier French poststructural thinking. The first major strand draws on Marxist theories of the role of ideology in supporting and maintaining capitalist social relations, exemplified by the work of Louis Althusser. A second stream of discourse derives from philosopher Jacques Derrida's studies of the social production of 'texts', informed by semiotic theorists such as Mikhail Bakhtin or Ferdinand Saussure. A further stream of discursive analysis draws on the work of philosopher Michel Foucault who argued that discourse provides the basis for the social articulation of formal or official observations and description of social objects and subjects - knowledge - but that social power relations are also deeply implicated in knowledge production. Combined in various forms these influences encouraged sociological inquiry in which the experience of social agents is constituted by and constitutive of their relations with others. Social facts are thus not obtained by simple objective empirical observation but are produced by observers under contingent conditions which condition and shape the intent and content of their observation and which are also suffused with power relations between social actors. Keith Jacobs and Tony Manzi have been exploring these theoretical issues since the mid-1990s culminating in their book Social Constructionism in Housing Research.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080471631006810

Gramscian Discourse Analysis

One prominent vein of discourse analysis, which has been used in the field of critical geopolitics, draws on neo- or post-Marxist ideas. In particular, this vein makes use of the theories of Antonio Gramsci, and sometimes of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's Discourse Theory (DT). From a methodological standpoint, there are no fully articulated sets of procedures specific to performing either Gramscian or DT-based discourse analyses. Gramscian approaches to discourse analysis are concerned with how discourse functions as a medium for the transmission, naturalization, and domination of particular ideologies over others via consent and coercion (rather than force). Gramsci referred to this consensual ideological domination as "cultural hegemony." In this view, discourse leads to sociomaterial outcomes via ideology (and discourse is therefore fundamentally political). Meanings are always relational and unfixed. Even seemingly hegemonic relations of meaning are subject to contestation in this approach. Indeed, Gramscian discourse analysts view the struggle for hegemony as the attempt to temporarily "fix" particular relations of meaning. The main drives of Gramscian discourse analyses are twofold: to denaturalize the normative, hegemonic position of certain discourses and ideologies; and to expose the social and political interests they serve. Gramscian approaches might be considered more explicitly political in purpose than FDA, although both aim to interrogate different aspects of (often hidden) power relations critically.

Human geographers have shown interest in Gramscian approaches to discourse analysis in multiple ways and contexts: from examinations of colonialism, imperialism, ethnocentrism, immigration, and foreign policy, to considerations of resource politics and climate change. Gramscian approaches lend themselves particularly well to geographers in contexts where different discourses could offer competing, taken-for-granted, or perhaps "official" visions and narratives of both space and place. These instances might exemplify language users' attempts, for political or other reasons, to fix relations of meaning in the construction or administration of space and place, to attain hegemony, or to legitimize spatialized activities. The concept of hegemony has featured strongly in the following: geopolitical analyses of the discourse and spatial activities of states; research concerning what might be considered the discourses of elite institutions; and, more broadly, examinations of power asymmetries. That said, some critics argue that purely Gramscian-influenced discursive analyses focus too heavily on the hegemonic discourses of sociopolitical elites, thereby overshadowing more marginalized, counterhegemonic discourses observable at other sociospatial scales.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081022955108145

Participation and Dialog

More culturally oriented sociological analyses of society argue that youngsters need to develop dialogic competences and an active action-oriented participation in society. Education should therefore pay more attention to dialogical learning, learning by experience, and activity-oriented learning. Dewey's pragmatism and Vygotsky's cultural activity theory have influenced the development of this perspective. From a Deweyan perspective, participation is not enough; experiences should lead to the transformation of knowledge and active processes of knowledge construction and competence development. A dialogic approach, based on the discourse theory of Habermas, has always been an important element in Kohlberg-oriented moral education ( Oser, 1994). Students should be involved in communication actions that challenge their ideas and deconstruct the values interwoven in them - this can help them reconstruct their own personal beliefs.

Students in teacher education should learn to use these dialogic and action-oriented activities in a learning environment that supports this kind of professional development. Gaining practical experience is a crucial element in many teacher education programs (Ten Dam and Blom, 2006). Action research and networking should be added to this learning. A perspective aimed at participation and dialog, as mentioned above, can create dialogic learning and change. Teaching, for Dewey, is a moral endeavor because its constituent acts have moral meanings in their own right and genuine intellectual work always implies moral development (Hansen, 2003). Hansen shows how moral assumptions are manifest in rituals, such as classroom beginnings, in teachers' style, and in the curriculum. Hansen argues for more attention toward moral knowledge and moral judgment in education and in teacher education. Participation, action, and reflection should include concern about moral values.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080448947006357

Discourse

The concept of 'discourse' further develops the analysis of language, especially its ability to create new truths and new worlds. Discourses are frameworks for understanding and directing different domains of social action. They are composed not only of specific vocabularies and rhetorical techniques, but also modes of thinking, grammars, rationalities, and even specific material practices that represent, interpret, and create new bits of reality. Although found in the structuralist works of Claude Levi-Strauss, much contemporary discourse theory is based on the work of Michel Foucault that explicitly links power and language.

Foucault argues that by establishing criteria by which truth is judged, discourse is the primary channel through which power flows within societies, social groups, and academic disciplines. Power, communicated through discourse, facilitates certain modes of acting and thinking, while limiting others. Moreover, discourse functions at the level of taken-for-granted presuppositions about reality. As a result, discourses produce a reality by establishing what an individual can think, say, or do. In his work on criminality, insanity, and sexuality, for example, Foucault argued that discourses are not simply reflections, representations, of social phenomena, but define them, thus giving them a reality. Further, those discourses are held in place and given force by specific social institutions and practices of everyday life, as well as the physical sites (prisons, hospitals, and asylums) that embody them. As a vehicle for power, discourse is thus internalized by social actors, and supporting Foucault's contention that power is diffused across a multitude of self-policing social actors, rather than exercised by a sovereign center.

Discourse analysis has been taken up across human geography, from political and economic geography to social, cultural, and environmental geography. It is possibly the most popular method of social analysis found within human geography. In every case, whatever the specific context, geographers are concerned to identify the constituents of the discourse, their origin, and most importantly their effects. The popularity of discourse as a critical concept, and the 'linguistic turn' more generally, has been criticized for sidelining the study of concrete problems on the one hand, and the continued role of capital and class in structuring power relationships on the other.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978008044910400465X

4 The Contemporary Revival (c. 1985 to the Present)

Just as exogenous developments during the two preceding decades imperiled the sociology of knowledge, intellectual trends since the mid 1980s have begun to resuscitate the field. Most generally these have included: burgeoning interest in the interdisciplinary field of cultural studies, stimulated by a declining focus on Marxist structuralism and the growing influence of works on discourse and linguistic theory, post-structuralism, and post-modernism (for discussion, see McCarthy 1996); the effort within Marxism itself to transform general claims about ideology into empirical studies of discursive formations and practices (Laclau and Mouffe 1985, Thompson 1990); the move within feminist scholarship to problematize knowledge and the standpoint and social position of knowledge producers (Harding 1991, Smith 1987); the increased production of sociologically-informed studies in the history of science and intellectual history (see Shapin 1982, Toews 1987); and the redirection of the sociology of science toward the examination of the contents of scientific knowledge and the social processes shaping them (see Collins 1983). Reinforcing these broad trends has been an expansion of interest in European social theorists whose works give considerable attention to knowledge-production processes, particularly Michel Foucault and his archeological and genealogical studies of the reciprocal constitution of various knowledge systems and webs of power relations (see Prado 1995), and Pierre Bourdieu and his writings on the dynamics of intellectual and scientific fields (see Ringer 1990).

From this confluence of exogenous developments has come a renewed concern with the sociology of knowledge, a concern that is currently pulling the field in the direction of two different approaches. The first of these is the broad-constructionist approach, exemplified in programmatic statements by McCarthy (1996), Stehr and Meja (1984), and Swidler and Arditi (1994), and in studies by Griswold (1986), Lamont (1987) and Wuthnow (1989). Pointing the sociology of knowledge outward toward the contemporary sociology of culture rather than toward the study of knowledge specialists, this perspective treats 'political and religious ideologies as well as science and everyday life, cultural and organizational discourses along with formal and informal types of knowledge' (Swidler and Arditi 1994, p. 306); and while amenable to a middle-level or institutional analysis of the social sources and consequences of these various forms of knowledge, it often retains the underlying suppositions of the 1920-65 period, viz. assumptions about the division between external (sociocultural) and internal (thought-content) factors, about the transparency of internal meanings to the sociological investigator, and about the explanatory importance of macro-level external factors. Moreover, while strongly committed to empirical research, this approach has also favored reopening some of the meta-theoretical issues that occupied earlier generations (see the contributions in Stehr and Meja 1984).

In these ways, the broad-constructionist approach diverges from the recent narrow-constructionist alternative. Found in the work of Camic (1983, 1992, Camic and Xie 1994), Collins (1998), Kusch (1995) and Shapin (1994), this second approach focuses the sociology of knowledge mainly on men and women who specialize in the production of ideas and on the particular social processes by which their ideas emerge and develop-a move that, in effect, transforms the field into a sociology of ideas. This perspective has tended to reject the core assumptions of the older sociology of knowledge, building instead on scholarship that argues that sociocultural processes are as much internal to the content of ideas as they are external (Bloor 1976, Shapin 1992), that the meanings of ideas are only understandable to an investigator after careful contextual reconstruction (Skinner 1969), and that local, micro-level settings are often the main sites for the development of ideas (Geertz 1983, Whitley 1984). Like the broad-constructionist approach, this narrow-constructionist perspective presently provides a foundation for several lines of empirical research (see Camic and Gross 2000). No forecast can yet be made, however, as to which approach, if either, will rescue the sociology of knowledge from its traditionally marginal position in the discipline of sociology.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767019070

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Within discourse theory, one can distinguish between at least three strands: post-structuralist, normative-deliberative and critical-realist discourse theories. * Post-structuralist discourse theory usually insists on the constitutive role of language and communication for what counts as real in a given society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These examples are from corpora and from sources on the web. Any opinions in the examples do not represent the opinion of the Cambridge Dictionary editors or of Cambridge University Press or its licensors.

discourse

These are words often used in combination with discourse.

Click on a collocation to see more examples of it.

academic discourse

It aims to find out where, when, and why (or why not) such linguistic forms emerge in academic discourse.

architectural discourse

Conventional architectural discourse teaches you to repress curiosity about the surface of things, to focus on the inner logic of an idea.

contemporary discourse

In contemporary discourse, proficiency was being prized above social status and ' amateurish ' was becoming a term of disparagement.

These examples are from corpora and from sources on the web. Any opinions in the examples do not represent the opinion of the Cambridge Dictionary editors or of Cambridge University Press or its licensors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These examples are from corpora and from sources on the web. Any opinions in the examples do not represent the opinion of the Cambridge Dictionary editors or of Cambridge University Press or its licensors. These are words often used in combination with discourse. Click on a collocation to see more examples of it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Discourse analysis is one of the most popular qualitative analysis techniques we encounter at Grad Coach. If you've landed on this post, you're probably interested in discourse analysis, but you're not sure whether it's the right fit for your project, or you don't know where to start. If so, you've come to the right place.

Overview: Discourse Analysis Basics

In this post, we'll explain in plain, straightforward language:

What is discourse analysis?

Let's start with the word "discourse".

In its simplest form, discourse is verbal or written communication between people that goes beyond a single sentence. Importantly, discourse is more than just language. The term "language" can include all forms of linguistic and symbolic units (even things such as road signs), and language studies can focus on the individual meanings of words. Discourse goes beyond this and looks at the overall meanings conveyed by language in context. "Context" here refers to the social, cultural, political, and historical background of the discourse, and it is important to take this into account to understand underlying meanings expressed through language.

A popular way of viewing discourse is as language used in specific social contexts, and as such language serves as a means of prompting some form of social change or meeting some form of goal.

Now that we've defined discourse, let's look at discourse analysis.

Discourse analysis uses the language presented in a corpus or body of data to draw meaning. This body of data could include a set of interviews or focus group discussion transcripts. While some forms of discourse analysis centre in on the specifics of language (such as sounds or grammar), other forms focus on how this language is used to achieve its aims. We'll dig deeper into these two abovementioned approaches later.

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).

For example, discourse analysis could be used to assess how language is used to express differing viewpoints on financial inequality and would look at how the topic should or shouldn't be addressed or resolved, and whether this so-called inequality is perceived as such by participants.

What makes discourse analysis unique is that it posits that social reality is socially constructed, or that our experience of the world is understood from a subjective standpoint. Discourse analysis goes beyond the literal meaning of words and languages

For example, people in countries that make use of a lot of censorship will likely have their knowledge, and thus views, limited by this, and will thus have a different subjective reality to those within countries with more lax laws on censorship.

When should you use discourse analysis?

There are many ways to analyse qualitative data (such as content analysis, narrative analysis, and thematic analysis), so why should you choose discourse analysis? Well, as with all analysis methods, the nature of your research aims, objectives and research questions (i.e. the purpose of your research) will heavily influence the right choice of analysis method.

The purpose of discourse analysis is to investigate the functions of language (i.e., what language is used for) and how meaning is constructed in different contexts, which, to recap, include social, cultural, political, and historical backgrounds of the discourse.

For example, if you were to study a politician's speeches, you would need to situate these speeches in their context, which would involve looking at the politician's background and views, the reasons for presenting the speech, the history or context of the audience, and the country's social and political history (just to name a few - there are always multiple contextual factors).

Discourse analysis can also tell you a lot about power and power imbalances, including how this is developed and maintained, how this plays out in real life (for example, inequalities because of this power), and how language can be used to maintain it. For example, you could look at the way that someone with more power (for example, a CEO) speaks to someone with less power (for example, a lower-level employee).

Therefore, you may consider discourse analysis if you are researching:

Some form of power or inequality (for example, how affluent individuals interact with those who are less wealthy

How people communicate in a specific context (such as in a social situation with colleagues versus a board meeting)

Ideology and how ideas (such as values and beliefs) are shared using language (like in political speeches)

How communication is used to achieve social goals (such as maintaining a friendship or navigating conflict)

As you can see, discourse analysis can be a powerful tool for assessing social issues, as well as power and power imbalances. So, if your research aims and objectives are oriented around these types of issues, discourse analysis could be a good fit for you.

Discourse Analysis: The main approaches

There are two main approaches to discourse analysis. These are the language-in-use (also referred to as socially situated text and talk) approaches and the socio-political approaches (most commonly Critical Discourse Analysis). Let's take a look at each of these.
Approach #1: Language-in-use
Language-in-use approaches focus on the finer details of language used within discourse, such as sentence structures (grammar) and phonology (sounds). This approach is very descriptive and is seldom seen outside of studies focusing on literature and/or linguistics.

Because of its formalist roots, language-in-use pays attention to different rules of communication, such as grammaticality (i.e., when something "sounds okay" to a native speaker of a language). Analysing discourse through a language-in-use framework involves identifying key technicalities of language used in discourse and investigating how the features are used within a particular social context.

For example, English makes use of affixes (for example, "un" in "unbelievable") and suffixes ("able" in "unbelievable") but doesn't typically make use of infixes (units that can be placed within other words to alter their meaning). However, an English speaker may say something along the lines of, "that's un-flipping-believable". From a language-in-use perspective, the infix "flipping" could be investigated by assessing how rare the phenomenon is in English, and then answering questions such as, "What role does the infix play?" or "What is the goal of using such an infix?"

Approach #2: Socio-political
Socio-political approaches to discourse analysis look beyond the technicalities of language and instead focus on the influence that language has in social context, and vice versa. One of the main socio-political approaches is Critical Discourse Analysis, which focuses on power structures (for example, the power dynamic between a teacher and a student) and how discourse is influenced by society and culture. Critical Discourse Analysis is born out of Michel Foucault's early work on power, which focuses on power structures through the analysis of normalised power.

Normalised power is ingrained and relatively allusive. It's what makes us exist within society (and within the underlying norms of society, as accepted in a specific social context) and do the things that we need to do. Contrasted to this, a more obvious form of power is repressive power, which is power that is actively asserted.
Sounds a bit fluffy? Let's look at an example.
Consider a situation where a teacher threatens a student with detention if they don't stop speaking in class. This would be an example of repressive power (i.e. it was actively asserted).

Normalised power, on the other hand, is what makes us not want to talk in class. It's the subtle clues we're given from our environment that tell us how to behave, and this form of power is so normal to us that we don't even realise that our beliefs, desires, and decisions are being shaped by it.

In the view of Critical Discourse Analysis, language is power and, if we want to understand power dynamics and structures in society, we must look to language for answers. In other words, analysing the use of language can help us understand the social context, especially the power dynamics.

While the abovementioned approaches are the two most popular approaches to discourse analysis, other forms of analysis exist. For example, ethnography-based discourse analysis and multimodal analysis. Ethnography-based discourse analysis aims to gain an insider understanding of culture, customs, and habits through participant observation (i.e. directly observing participants, rather than focusing on pre-existing texts).

On the other hand, multimodal analysis focuses on a variety of texts that are both verbal and nonverbal (such as a combination of political speeches and written press releases). So, if you're considering using discourse analysis, familiarise yourself with the various approaches available so that you can make a well-informed decision.

How to "do" discourse analysis

As every study is different, it's challenging to outline exactly what steps need to be taken to complete your research. However, the following steps can be used as a guideline if you choose to adopt discourse analysis for your research.
Step 1: Decide on your discourse analysis approach
The first step of the process is to decide on which approach you will take in terms. For example, the language in use approach or a socio-political approach such as critical discourse analysis. To do this, you need to consider your research aims, objectives and research questions. Of course, this means that you need to have these components clearly defined. If you're still a bit uncertain about these, check out our video post covering topic development here.

While discourse analysis can be exploratory (as in, used to find out about a topic that hasn't really been touched on yet), it is still vital to have a set of clearly defined research questions to guide your analysis. Without these, you may find that you lack direction when you get to your analysis. Since discourse analysis places such a focus on context, it is also vital that your research questions are linked to studying language within context.

Based on your research aims, objectives and research questions, you need to assess which discourse analysis would best suit your needs. You can get an overview of the available options here, so I won't go into detail in this post. The main takeaway, however, is that you need to adopt an approach that aligns with your study's purpose. So, think carefully about what you are investigating and what you want to achieve, and then consider the various options available within discourse analysis.

It's vital to determine your discourse analysis approach from the get-go, so that you don't waste time randomly analysing your data without any specific plan.

Step 2: Design your collection method and gather your data
Once you've got determined your overarching approach, you can start looking at how to collect your data. Data in discourse analysis is drawn from different forms of "talk" and "text", which means that it can consist of interviews, ethnographies, discussions, case studies, blog posts.

The type of data you collect will largely depend on your research questions (and broader research aims and objectives). So, when you're gathering your data, make sure that you keep in mind the "what", "who" and "why" of your study, so that you don't end up with a corpus full of irrelevant data. Discourse analysis can be very time consuming, so you want to ensure that you're not wasting time on information that doesn't directly pertain to your research questions.

When considering potential collection methods, you should also consider the practicalities. What type of data can you access in reality? How many participants do you have access to and how much time do you have available to collect data and make sense of it? These are important factors, as you'll run into problems if your chosen methods are impractical in light of your constraints.

Once you've determined your data collection method, you can get to work with the collection.

Step 3: Investigate the context
A key part of discourse analysis is context and understanding meaning in context. For this reason, it is vital that you thoroughly and systematically investigate the context of your discourse. Make sure that you can answer (at least the majority) of the following questions:

What is the discourse?

Why does the discourse exist? What is the purpose and what are the aims of the discourse?

When did the discourse take place?

Where did it happen?

Who participated in the discourse? Who created it and who consumed it?

What does the discourse say about society in general?

How is meaning being conveyed in the context of the discourse?

Make sure that you include all aspects of the discourse context in your analysis to eliminate any confounding factors. For example, are there any social, political, or historical reasons as to why the discourse would exist as it does? What other factors could contribute to the existence of the discourse? Discourse can be influenced by many factors, so it is vital that you take as many of them into account as possible.

Once you've investigated the context of your data, you'll have a much better idea of what you're working with, and you'll be far more familiar with your content. It's then time to begin your analysis.

Step 4: Analyse your data
When performing a discourse analysis, you'll need to look for themes and patterns. To do this, you'll start by looking at codes, which are specific topics within your data. You can find more information about the qualitative data coding process here.

Next, you'll take these codes and identify themes. Themes are patterns of language (such as specific words or sentences) that pop up repeatedly in your data, and that can tell you something about the discourse. For example, if you're wanting to know about women's perspectives of living in a certain area, potential themes may be "safety" or "convenience".

In discourse analysis, it is important to reach what is called data saturation. This refers to when you've investigated your topic and analysed your data to the point where no new information can be found. To achieve this, you need to work your way through your data set multiple times, developing greater depth and insight each time. This can be quite time consuming and even a bit boring at times, but it's essential.

Once you've reached the point of saturation, you should have an almost-complete analysis and you're ready to move onto the next step - final review.

Step 5: Review your work
Hey, you're nearly there. Good job! Now it's time to review your work.

This final step requires you to return to your research questions and compile your answers to them, based on the analysis. Make sure that you can answer your research questions thoroughly, and also substantiate your responses with evidence from your data.

Usually, discourse analysis studies make use of appendices, which are referenced within your thesis or dissertation. This makes it easier for reviewers or markers to jump between your analysis (and findings) and your corpus (your evidence) so that it's easier for them to assess your work.

When answering your research questions, make you should also revisit your research aims and objectives, and assess your answers against these. This process will help you zoom out a little and give you a bigger picture view. With your newfound insights from the analysis, you may find, for example, that it makes sense to expand the research question set a little to achieve a more comprehensive view of the topic.

Let's have a quick recap...

In this article, we've covered quite a bit of ground. The key takeaways are:

Discourse analysis is a qualitative analysis method used to draw meaning from language in context.

You should consider using discourse analysis when you wish to analyse the functions and underlying meanings of language in context.

The two overarching approaches to discourse analysis are language-in-use and socio-political approaches.

The main steps involved in undertaking discourse analysis are deciding on your analysis approach (based on your research questions), choosing a data collection method, collecting your data, investigating the context of your data, analysing your data, and reviewing your work.

If you have any questions about discourse analysis, feel free to leave a comment below. If you'd like 1-on-1 help with your analysis, book a free initial consultation with a friendly Grad Coach to see how we can help.

Psst... there's more (for free)

This post is part of our research writing mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is Discourse Analysis? Simple Definition + Examples - Grad Coach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discourse analysis is one of the most popular qualitative analysis techniques we encounter at Grad Coach. If you've landed on this post, you're probably interested in discourse analysis, but you're not sure whether it's the right fit for your project, or you don't know where to start.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TED-Ed celebrates the ideas of teachers and students around the world. Discover hundreds of animated lessons, create customized lessons, and share your big ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Foucault presents possibly the best definition of discourse. He defines discourse as, "Systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, and courses of action, beliefs and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak."

Originally, it has roots in the Latin language. The term assumes slightly different meanings in different contexts. In literature, discourse means speech or writing, normally longer than sentences, which deals with a certain subject formally. In other words, discourse is the presentation of language in its entirety, while performing an intellectual inquiry in a particular area or field, such as theological discourse or cultural discourse.

General Classifications of Discourse

Discourse can be classified into four main categories, namely:

Exposition

The main focus of this type of discourse is to make the audience aware about the topic of the discussion. Definitions and comparative analysis of different ideas and beliefs are examples of discourse exposition.

Narration

Narration is a type of discourse that relies on stories, folklore or a drama as a medium of communication.
Stage play, story, and folklore are narrative discourse examples.

Description

This type involves describing something in relation to the senses. Descriptive discourse enables the audience to develop a mental picture of what is being discussed. Descriptive parts of novel or essay are descriptive discourse examples.

Argument

This type of discourse is based on valid logic and, through correct reasoning, tries to motivate the audience. Examples of argumentative discourse include lectures, essays, and prose.

Examples of Discourse in Literature

Poetic Discourse

Poetic discourse is a type of literary conversation which focuses on the expression of feelings, ideas, imaginations, events, and places through specific rhymes and rhythms. Poetic discourse makes use of common words in appealing ways to present feelings and emotions. The mechanism of poetic discourse involves certain steps starting from different sources, then entering the mental process, mental realization, and then finally into a finished product as poetry.

Example #1: A Character (By William Wordsworth)

"I marvel how Nature could ever find space
For so many strange contrasts in one human face:
There's thought and no thought, and there's paleness and bloom
And bustle and sluggishness, pleasure and gloom."

Expressive Discourse

Expressive discourse does not involve the presentation of facts, or the motivating of others, but is rather a reflection of our emotions that form the foundation of our expressions. This is a form of basic or entry-level discourse, and is beneficial for beginners in the field of literature. It primarily deals with generating ideas with no concrete source. Examples include academic essays and diaries.

Example #2: The Diary of Samuel Pepys (By Samuel Pepys, 1660)

"We met very early at our office this morning to pick out the twenty-five ships which are to be first paid off. After that to Westminster and dined with Mr. Dalton at his office, where we had one great court dish, but our papers not being done we could [not] make an end of our business till Monday next. Mr. Dalton and I over the water to our landlord Vanly, with whom we agree as to Dalton ..."

Transactional Discourse

The basic aim in this kind of discourse is to convey the message in such a way that it is clearly understood without any confusion. Whatever is said has no ambiguity - everything is clear for the reader. Usually, this type of discourse is in active voice. Examples include instructions, guidelines, manuals, privacy policies, and patient instructions as written by doctors.

Function of Discourse

The role of discourse is hard to ignore in our daily intellectual pursuits, for it provides a basis to conduct a comparative analysis and frame our perceptions about different things. For instance, two competing discourses about the civil war in Syria today can be used to qualify the war as either "war against dictatorship," or "war against imperialism." On the other hand, it could be deemed as "war against Islam," or "war for humanity." Thus, both discourses provide a distinct style, vocabulary, and presentation, which are required to convey the respective ideas to a specific audience.

According to Jacques Lucan and Ferdinand de Saussure, language (discourse) is the main force which works behind all kinds of human activities and changes in social fabric; whereas Modernists attribute discourse to development and progress. Another important function of discourse is to generate and preserve truth as argued by the Postmodernist theories.

report this ad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Discourse - Examples and Definition of Discourse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Definition, Usage and a list of Discourse Examples in common speech and literature. Foucault presents possibly the best definition of discourse.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Генератор QR кодов

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Сервис создания QR-кодов on-line. Описание технологии, примеры использования, программы для распознавания.