Approaches to discourse analysis

Discourse analysis encompasses a wide range of approaches from within different traditions including linguistics, social theory and psychology.

Approaches to discourse analysis can be divided broadly into those which focus on the micro level of language use and interaction and those which consider broader societal discourses. Each of these approaches uses the term discourse differently. A number of key approaches to discourses analysis are considered briefly below to provide an outline of the many ways in which the term discourse can be used and to locate this project more clearly within this complex theoretical area. Following this exploration, I will set out how the term discourse will be used in this study.

Sociolinguistic approaches developed from anthropology and sociology and focus on language in use. Sociolinguistic forms of discourse analysis provide methods for analysing language and discourse at the micro level. This use of language is important in relation to individual understandings of student behaviour. However, focusing solely on the micro level does not explain the broader ideas which are being drawn upon when discussing risk issues. Fairclough (1989) criticises sociolinguistic approaches for continuing positivist approaches to language believing that there are observable truths rather than

approach is therefore not compatible with critical realism. It also does not situate this language within broader societal structures.

Conversation analysis is a particular form of sociolinguistic discourse analysis which considers the ways in which language is used within interactions (Atkinson and Heritage, 1986). Conversation analysis has particular advantages when considering conversations happening in natural settings as it recognises that the type of language and the way in which it is used differs in formal settings such as interviews (Goodwin and Heritage, 1990). The focus of conversation analysis on the dynamics of language and the linguistic strategies individuals use could have provided a valuable tool for considering how individuals defended their decisions in relation to risk. However, as it is not possible to predict when HEI staff will have to respond to risk issues, accessing natural conversations about risk issues would have presented significant practical challenges and was not feasible. Moreover, conversation analysis does not link individual conversations and interactions to societal discourses which was something I had already

established as important; therefore, I decided not to pursue this approach for this study.

Thematic discourse analysis looks at underlying themes, rather than focussing on a linguistic analysis to establish important topics for investigation (see for example, Ussher and Mooney-Somers, 2000; Mason, 2002). Some proponents of thematic analysis view this as an attempt to bridge the qualitative / quantitative divide; the extent of this depends upon the approach taken to data coding. Quantitative approaches to coding follow a pre-established coding scheme and may record the frequency of particular themes and use this to establish the

relative importance of different themes. More qualitative approaches look to the data and identify themes from the data rather than using an established coding scheme. It is possible to combine these approaches to look for evidence to confirm existing theoretical concepts and to identify new constructs. Thematic analysis could be compatible with critical realist ontology and is useful for establishing broad themes for analysis. A thematic approach can contribute towards understanding of the key areas for analysis and this aspect of the approach informed the research method.

Sociolinguistic discourse analysis and conversation analysis operate at a micro- level, helping to understand meaning and process within a relatively bounded context. They also provide a framework for examining language in detail. These approaches focus on detail rather than offering an opportunity to consider

discourse in a broader context. Thematic discourse analysis does consider broad themes but still focuses more at a semantic, micro level of analysis rather than considering underlying conceptual ideas. Therefore these approaches did not meet the needs of this study. However, reviewing these approaches is a useful reminder that the term discourse has entered general usage and has multiple and sometimes opaque meanings. My interest in discourse is as a conceptual framework where there is a two way interaction between words and frameworks (Burr, 2003); where discourse is used to describe a constellation of frequently occurring ideas which have a coherent pattern, e.g. the ‘neo-liberal discourse’. Discourse, then, creates understandings of realities. This usage of discourse draws heavily on the work of Foucault, which is explored below.

Foucault uses the term discursive formation to recognise the relationship between statements and ideas which create or define a discourse; a discourse contains a pattern of statements which is repeated by different people or in different genres or contexts (Foucault, 1995; Foucault, 2002; Hall, 2001). A discourse therefore frames a particular action or situation, setting boundaries as to what is acceptable or even what can be thought or perceived. Much of

Foucault’s work focuses on meso and meta- level discourses at a societal level with a particular focus on how these discourses change. Foucault’s description of epsitemes or periods of knowledge in The Order of Things (Foucault, 1970) identifies four key, discontinuous discourses about knowledge. This clear

identification of discrete epistemes is consistent with critical realism’s premise of transfactuality as it presents dominant discourses and the related social

structures as relatively stable within a given episteme. Moreover, the

discontinuities between the epistemes provide a valuable example of the impact of the transitive realm on our understandings of the intransitive realm.

Foucault explores the relationship between discourse and broader social structures with a particular focus on power (Allen, 1998; Hall, 2001; Foucault, 2002; Jacob, 2009). In contrast to conversation analysis and other sociolinguistic approaches, Foucault focuses on meso and meta levels of discourse; that is he considers how language is related to social structures and hierarchies and how it can create and maintain those power structures. Foucault is particularly

interested in how discourses create power structures in relation to oppressed groups such as those deemed to be mentally ill (Foucault, 2002). This concern about the use of discourse to ‘produce and sustain hegemonic power’ (Sawicki,

Hegemonic power is the power of widely accepted discourses which are accepted as givens and policed by a population at a particular point in time; these discourses define which actions are permissible within a given society. In critical realist terms hegemonic discourses are social structures which constrain the actions of individual agents. Foucault therefore provides an approach to understanding structures although, as outlined below, his contribution towards the understanding of agency is limited.

The focus on power is relevant for this research study, as responding to students who present a risk to self or others involves the definition of power relations between HEI staff and individual students. Moreover, Beck (2000) acknowledges the importance of power structures in defining risk; in a risk society those who define acceptable and unacceptable risks hold power over others. Denney (2005) also makes this link when considering risk and the growth of modern governments. He argues that the role of modern governments is to protect their populations from risk. As bodies with close links to government, albeit not directly part of government, HEIs may also seek to protect their members. Foucault’s distinction between discursive power and sovereign power is also useful within the context of risk as it distinguishes between the power which is a result of institutional structures (sovereign power) and the power which is a result of discourses constraining individuals (discursive power) (Allen, 1998). The notion of discursive or disciplinary power has been contested by critical realists as it can be read as indicating a lack of agency amongst those who comply with the discourse (Joseph, 2004) creating passive subjects rather than active agents. Indeed it is this agency which enables people to reflect upon, resist and change

increased focus on agency to understand the complexity of the social world. Despite these difficulties with the notion of disciplinary power the term does provide a useful, albeit partial, description of the power of discourses to shape practices and the term is therefore used within this thesis.

Foucault’s analysis of the language used in relation to mental health clearly demonstrates how this approach is relevant to understanding the role discourse plays in shaping the possibilities for action (Foucault, 1995; Foucault, 2002; Jacob, 2009). As the discursive construction of certain forms of behaviour moved from bad to mad, the treatment of those with mental health difficulties changed; instead of punishment they were offered treatment (albeit limited) and care. Of course, the actions of individuals within these discourses varied and were determined by their own positioning within the discourse and the choices they made as reflexive, agentic individuals. However, discourses clearly

constrained the range of actions deemed to be acceptable with punishments or treatments which were once considered normal becoming seen as at worst barbaric or at best unacceptable. To avoid the risk of punishment themselves individual agents working with people who were mentally ill had to change or hide their behaviour. The mad/bad distinction continues in portrayals of people with mental health difficulties in the media today. Using a discourse analysis

approach to understand responses to students who present a risk to self or others clearly presents similar possibilities for understanding different

constructions of the behaviour and different potential actions as a result of this understanding; that is discourse analysis provides a way of considering social structures within which individual agents operate. As Burr notes:

“we both actively produce and manipulate, and are

product of discourse [this] allows us the possibility of personal, and social change through our capacity to identify, understand and resist the discourses to which we are subject.” (Burr, 2003 p125)

By understanding these discourses it may be possible to identify potential alternative courses of action for HEIs in these situations. Moreover, feminists have established compatibility between Foucault’s work on discourse and feminist positions (Kurzweil, 1986; Sawicki, 1998); the feminist statement ‘the

personal is political’ (Hanisch, 1970) embodies the feminist understanding of the

links between personal language and actions and societal discourses.

Some critics of Foucault have suggested that he does not accept the material reality of the world (for discussion of this issue see Burr, 2003). However, Hall (2001) refutes this claiming that Foucault acknowledges the material reality but recognises that meaning is only ascribed to this reality through discourse. In The

Archaeology of Knowledge. (2002) Foucault explores how discourses operate

alongside and inform other social practices; this indicates an acceptance of a material world the experience of which is, to a greater or lesser extent, mediated through discourse. This acceptance of the material, intransitive world suggests potential compatibility with critical realism however, the limitations of discourse as an explanatory mechanism need to be identified as these limits are not clear in Foucault’s work. Foucault can provide a useful lens to consider social structures but other forms of investigation would be required to examine the role of agents within these structures.

individual agency and social structures creates social reality; that is social reality emerges from a number of causes and it is not possible to explain fully this reality by examining isolated aspects of experience. Individuals live in a complex social worlds which they both reproduce and transform through their agentic actions. Foucault’s presentation of agency is possibly one of the more contested areas in relation to critical realism. Critics of Foucault argue that his focus on structures and power leaves no room for individual agency; for example, the notion of disciplinary power does not explore the ways in which individuals resist this power (see for example, Al Amoudi, 2007). However, as Archer (2002) notes, Foucault’s later work includes greater reflections on agency. Jager (2001) also argues that some of Foucault’s work recognises individual agency; Jager develops this argument to suggest that Foucault’s approach to agency is

inconsistent throughout his work. It is therefore possible to recognise that there is a limited role for agency in Foucault’s work but to be truly congruent with a critical realist position greater focus on agency would be required.

Whilst elements of Foucault’s work may acknowledge the possibility of agency, he does not investigate the reflexive experience of the individual. As noted above, the capacity for, and role of, reflexivity is important to Archer’s reading of critical realism. Archer (2000; 2007) describes a new phase of critical realism which considers habitual acts which reproduce societies rather than focussing on transformational actions. She identifies reflexivity as something which can only be undertaken by agents and notes that increased reflexivity is required to meet the demands of a rapidly changing world. Reflexive subjects are able to

mechanism by which discourses may be changed and is a useful explanatory mechanism of how discourses may be changed.

Foucault, therefore provides useful insights into social structures but makes a limited contribution to the consideration of agency and reflexivity. Critical realism requires its proponents to develop theories which are socially useful or

emancipatory. Foucault certainly foregrounds the issues facing oppressed groups in his considerations of mental illness (Foucault, 2001), sexuality

(Foucault, 1998), and crime and punishment (Foucault, 1995) however, this work does not directly suggest actions which can or should be taken to improve the situation of these groups. As Al-Amoudi (2007) suggests, Foucault (1995) does explore strategies of resistance in Discipline and Punish, however, this is an examination of other peoples’ strategies rather than an attempt to develop new approaches to resistance. For this reason I concur with Pearce and Woodiwiss’ (2005) argument that realist readings of Foucault are possible but truly critical realist readings are not. Therefore a purely Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis would not be suitable for this study. I therefore turned to critical

discourse analysis as outlined in the next section.

In summary, this section has explored some of the meanings of discourse

analysis within contemporary research. Sociolinguistic approaches, conversation analysis and thematic discourse analysis were briefly explored; these

approaches are principally linguistic working at a micro level to understand particular concepts and are not suitable for this study. Foucault’s approach to discourse analysis as an analysis of broad societal ideas which frame social and

Foucault’s approach has been shown to be compatible with a realist approach but not fully compatible with a critical realist approach. I therefore sought an approach which would draw on the strengths of Foucault whilst being compatible with a critical realist ontology and which would enable me to consider discourse at a micro level and at broader societal level; critical discourse analysis seemed to provide this possibility.