ANALYSIS

Davidson ( 1 986) identifies three forms of analysis within the writings of Foucault: archaeology, genealogy and ethics. Each relates to the three areas of analysis that concerned Foucault during his lifetime. Systems of knowledge was the first of Foucault's analytical interests followed by "modalities of power, and of the selfs relationship to itself' (p. 22 1 ). The first two domains were of particular interest to my study as I was interested primarily, in how women and practitioners represented maternal age in relation to pregnancy and birth. The two domains of archaeology and genealogy are not separate from one another: they can be used together to complement one another (Davidson, 1 986; Kendall & Wickham, 1 999). Kendall and Wickham ( 1 999, p.30) write of archaeology as being like a photograph of a wedge of a discursive nexus, while genealogy focuses on the nexus's ongoing processes. Davidson ( 1986) makes the distinction thus:

Archaeology attempts to isolate the level of discursive practices and formulate the rules of production and transformation for these practices. Genealogy, on the other hand, concentrates on the forces and relations of power connected to discursive practices; it does insist on a separation of the rules for production of discourse and relations of power.

p. 227 My first exercise was to read and re-read every transcript to gain an overview

and an understanding of the texts. Then; I began organising them. I had to do this manually as I found that the Microsoft Works programme used by my first transcriber

did not mesh with the Word programme that I was using to write my thesis. I decided therefore to print hard copies of each transcript. I found working with the actual pieces of paper allowed me to move across and back from one transcript or transcript segment to another in a way that a computer screen did not.

Initially I had thought I might analyse the transcripts according to the category of speakers. For example, to analyse all the midwives' transcripts first before beginning analysis of the GPs. However, when I read across the transcripts I saw that the meanings given to discursive objects, for example birth, were not necessarily determined by the category of speaker. Similar meanings were apparent across the texts of the different categories of speakers (Lupton, 1 999). For example, some of the women and medical practitioners, as well as the midwives, spoke of birth as an inherently safe process.

Keeping in mind Foucault's ( 1 972) concept of discourses as practices which systematically form their discursive objects, and that speaking and writing are discursive practices, I decided that the first step to take in sorting the data was to read through the transcripts with the understanding that each one contained glimpses or fragments of a discourse (Parker, 1 992). As I read the transcripts (and the literature), my first question of the data was "What objects and practices are being spoken of here?" As

I began to identify objects such as birth, the older woman's body, the intellectually disabled baby and the practices surrounding prenatal genetic testing and intervention, I

cut and pasted together copies of relevant excerpts from transcripts. Following Potter and Wetherell's ( 1 987) suggestion to be as inclusive as possible since sorting has a pragmatic goal, I put all the excerpts on the same discursive topic for example, about birth, together. So as not to lose the context in which the extracted statements were made I also made a hard copy of each complete transcript, which I would refer back to.

My second sorting step was then to read through each group of excerpts and look for similarities and differences within each discursive topic. For example, reading through all the excerpts on the topic of birth, I found that some participants spoke of birth as a process that was potentially dangerous, whereas others depicted it as an inherently safe process. In this way, I was able to identify the different discourses that were deployed by the participants and to reveal the multiplicity of discourses that existed in relation to birth. Potter and Wetherell ( 1 987) write of looking for patterns in variability and consistency. The researcher identifies both the differences in the structure and content of the statements, and the characteristics shared by statements. While I had an idea of what some of the discourses were before I embarked on

analysing my data, by these means I was able to identify further discourses deployed within the literature and by participants.

Parker ( 1992) writes that a discourse is interrelated with other discourses. There are points where a discourse may intersect with or involve the use of another discourse, or where it may imply another. He recommends strategies for assisting the identification and exploration of the differences and overlaps between discourses. The first strategy is to put the various discourses beside one another and to look for the different objects that they constitute. The second strategy is to discern where the discourses overlap, by looking for the same object and how it is being constructed in different ways. For example, further on in my analysis of the discourses regarding prenatal genetic diagnosis, I found that the women constituted the knowledge provided by the tests in quite different ways.

To gain a sense of the speaking positions, subjectivities or identities offered by the discourses, and the relations between the different speaking positions, I looked for the way in which women talked about themselves and the practitioners. Davies and Harre ( 1 990) suggest that pulling out the sections where the speakers talk autobiographically can assist in identifying subject positions. From these segments, it may be able to ascertain how the speakers think of themselves and others.

Having completed sorting the data, my next step was to analyse each discourse. I posed the following questions, derived from the writings of Foucault ( 1 972), Parker ( 1 992) and Kendall and Wickham ( 1 999). What objects, issues and practices are constituted by the discourse? What are the relations between the different speakers of the discourse? Where do the objects of the discourse come into being and in what places? What are the institutions implicated in the discourse? What are the conditions that allow the discourse to exist? What rules are there as to what constitutes the truth?

The archaeological questions asked of the data therefore are to do with what the rules of the discourse are, with what can be said, and with what cannot be said. There are limits as to the time and place when a certain group of statements can be expressed and be regarded as the truth (Hacking, 1 986).

Genealogy also involves an analysis of the "history of the present" (Kendall &

Wickham, 1 999). Prado ( 1 995) suggests that:

Genealogy must analyze the descent and emergence of morals, ideals, and metaphysical concepts, in order to show them and their like to be

neither discovered truths nor preordained developments, but rather the products of conglomerations of blind forces.

p. 38 Therefore, the question arises as to when do terms, for example "elderly primigravida", appear or disappear? Prior ( 1 997), when describing how he might apply a genealogical approach to the classification of causes of death, states that he would "trace the points at which certain illnesses have been admitted into the nosology and others expelled from it" (p. 69). I asked of my data when and what other factors became associated with "elderly primigravidas? What are the other discourses associated with "elderly primigravida /primiparas? What are their effects on one another?

Davidson ( 1 986) writes that pursuing genealogical method impelled Foucault to make clear his rules for analyzing power. Following on from my explication of Foucault' s ( 1 978, 1 980) concepts of power in Chapter Two, the questions asked of power in this study are: Does power enable or constrain? What techniques or technologies of power are being exercised, and by whom? How does a discourse relate to the exercise of power and power to truth? What resistant discourses and tactics of power are there? How do they operate? Who are the speakers and what subject positions do they take up? Parker ( 1 992) suggests that two questions related to power to consider are which people would benefit or lose from the use of a discourse, and who would want to advance the discourse or want it to dissipate?

I noted that Bungay and Keddy ( 1 996), researchers interested in the method of experiential analysis, which is based on contemporary thinkers such as Foucault, describe a form of literature review that is different from the "traditional" review. Their review of the literature exposes the different discourses in play. Kendall and Wickham ( 1 999) when describing Foucault' s "ordering tool" of archaeology write of how Foucault makes "continual recourse to the archive"(p. 25, emphasis in original text). Thus, the literature on maternal age became not just a means of justifying my research but became actual data for analysis.

I analysed the literature separately from the transcripts. My reason for this was that I wanted initially to identify the discourses in the literature and then to see if and how my participants articulated these. It was important to me that I read and analysed my participants' voices away from the literature. I wanted to be free, in a sense, to have the opportunity, to listen to them speaking for themselves. I was aware that most of the literature was by overseas authors and that the history and context of New Zealand! Aotearoa might raise different issues and ways of thinking.