Fairclough (1992) understands constitution as the coherence of a text. It is a property which interpreters impose upon accounts. This is not solely based on analysing the structure of the text; the analyst is also concerned with how these types of texts (accounts) are consumed and reconstituted by social actors (considered as drawn from wider ideological and social forces). Here the researcher utilises a top-down (macro) approach, which means analysing the wider powers and structures of discourses and narratives through extending (in a bottom-up way) the themes drawn from the accounts during the micro-level analysis. In essence, the researcher analyses how the micro features of accounts relate to wider macro discourses, but specifically in the context of ideological coherence.
In analysing the textual coherence of accounts with wider ideological, historical and social forces (Joseph 2004; Roberts and Joseph, 2004), the literature review provided the framework for the researcher with a way to analyse the coherence of the accounts at the micro-level with wider narratives and discourses of social work at the macro level. The accounts of social actors in this study were then extended to how the discourse themes identified (from the micro-analysis) were considered as textually coherent with discourses surrounding ideological and knowledge formations in social work (as illustrated in the literature review). To reiterate then, each discourse theme identified from the micro-properties of the text goes beyond the structure of the narrative and account, and analyses how these have ideological coherence with wider social forces that influence the construction of social work. Studying ideological coherence of texts included analysing the consistent use of verb tense, sentence topics and use of pronouns, and requires the active interpretation of the researcher who draws on their own background knowledge (Brown and Yule, 1983). Coherence of accounts does not have units of analysis because it requires the interpreter to justify the interpretation, by showing how
compatible the discourse themes (identified in the research) are with the features of past texts in social work (history and ideology). This is discussed and demonstrated in chapters four and five.
2. 35 Intertextuality
Similarly, intertextuality is also discussed in these later chapters and has no units of analysis. The term was first mentioned in the literature review to note how the accounts of social workers included wider pre-determined texts, narratives and voices from social work cultures. Part one of chapter two (methodology) also demonstrated how narratives were aligned to the concept of intertextuality, through critical deconstruction showing the rationale for aligning narrative analysis to this research consistent with the theories underpinning Fairclough’s (1992) seven dimensional analysis.
The term, which originally derived from Kristeva (1986), illustrated how texts are shaped by prior texts, or signs in Saussure’s terms (Boje, 2001; Mayr 2008). What this means is that the words of one are carried by others, and so implies the insertion of history (society) into a text and text into history. By the insertion of history, the text absorbs and builds on texts from the past (Mayr, 2008; Machin and Mayr, 2012). The concept of diagnosis in casework can be aligned with both Victorian and post-war discourses of social work: when a subject accounts for social work as constituting ‘treatment’, this can be viewed as reworking past texts of clinical social work drawn from post-war discourses. This historicity of texts enables critical discourse analysts to understand how intertextuality draws attention to the discourse types available within the territory. These include the configuration of conventionalised practices such as genres (e.g. case talk), and well refined discourses of social work such as ‘deskilling’. These examples show how discourses are available to social actors’ in particular social circumstances. Understood as the constitutive view of discourse, CDA draws on the conceptions of Foucault (1972) which views discourse as actively constituting or constructing society on a variety of levels: it constructs the objects of knowledge, forms of self (subjectivity) and social
relationships (Foucault, 1972; Fairclough 1992; Weiss and Wodak, 2003; Machin and Mayr, 2012).
The relationship between hegemony and discourse in intertextuality is an important one because it points to the productivity and consumption of texts (Gramsci, 1971; Fairclough 1992; Machin and Mayr, 2012). Discourses can transform prior texts and restructure existing genres to generate new ones (Fairclough, 1995a). These discourses are understood to have power over society and represent discursive structures and events, and refer to what Fairclough called orders of discourse. This vertical analysis of intertextuality is drawn upon in CDA to outline how relations between a text and other texts constitute either immediate or distant (past) contexts of social work. This provides this research with opportunities to align wider (meta-) narratives to the micro-features of accounts in social work. Moreover, it illuminates how power relations shape, and are shaped by, discursive/social structures and practices.
This instigates the second and third stage of analysis which is more theoretical and based on interpretivist principles in qualitative inquiry. The researcher aligns the previous discourse themes to their relationship with discursive and social practices (orders of discourse), and engages in a dialogue between a range of theories and disciplines. The interpreter justifies the relationship of prior texts by discriminating and identifying how these interrelate with wider orders of discourse, for example social ideologies such as neo-liberalism. According to Fairclough (1989) from the point of interpretation of discourse themes and how these relate to discursive practices, the analyst can quickly go on to the final stage by illuminating their relationship (explanation) with wider social forces (historical and ideological). This is because after the seven dimensions of textual analysis have taken place, discursive practices and orders of discourses (social practices) are illuminated through analysis. This provides the platform for the analysis and discussion chapters of this thesis.
2. 36 A Reflexive Pause and Summary
In reflecting on Halliday’s (1978) perspective grounded on the assumption that social actors choose language to construe reality, I considered the possible contradictions inherent within this proposition. In the use of ‘I’ in accounts, self- awareness and the presentation of self might not always be at the forefront of the social actor’s mind, and so language choice may not always be conscious. Not all social actors are necessarily self-conscious and reflexive at all times. Linked by psychoanalytic theorists, the Freudian concept of unconsciousness was aligned to the study of discourse, and understood as a hidden mental entity which cognitive psychologists aimed to describe and analyse. These weaknesses were illustrated mainly by Lacanian psychoanalysts; they argued that previous approaches from these traditions had been vague and had often denied agency to the actor (Billig, 1999).
Whilst Lacan (1988) draws on ideas aligned with some critical linguistics, this approach believes that language underpins all human unconsciousness. This strand of linguistics can be argued to fail to fully take into account the material effects of power and institutions, thus subsequently overemphasising subjectivity. Whilst subjects here are understood as interpellated by discourse through a range of subject positions in Lacanian approaches to the study of discourse, Chouliaraki and Fairclough (2002) argue that this theory overestimates the possibility of change because not all groups in society or individuals have equal opportunities to access or promote change. They further add that discourse does not solely emanate from discursive practices as Lacan argues but from structural relationships and conditions which can create dependency as well as limit social actors’ possibilities. Imperative to CDA is the emphasis on a structural domain and analysis and Chouliaraki and Fairclough (2002) argue that there is a danger of under theorising social practices in this psychoanalytic Lacanian discourse analysis. As such, Lacan’s (1988) integration of critical linguistics, used as a tool to determine and argue a fragmented self in the language of ‘ego’s’ is considered here as a descriptive rather than explanatory discourse analytic method with a tendency to view the social actor as a passive agent affected by the signified and not the master of it. Assuming that there are
always two opposing concepts such as consciousness and the unconscious is to assume a particular discourse aligned with specific traditions in psychology, namely Freudian.
And so in my reflection, I consider a transcendental argument in the context of understanding the conscious and unconscious mind, which asserts that the unconscious can not necessarily be identified and linked to a particular universal dimension. Instead, the conscious and unconscious mind is considered able to synthesise information. This organisation involves putting representations together, one of which is through speech and grasping how this links to one’s own knowledge (Kant, [1787] 2003). This means that this study assumes that social actors do know and are self-conscious about some things (Kant, [1787] 2003). This research adopts the position of Kant, in that there are two types of consciousness of self: consciousness of oneself in relation to psychological states and consciousness of one’s states during the performance of acts (Kant [1787] 2003). Social actors here are assumed to have insight and ability to analyse their own psychological states, based on the principles of social work and its inherent relationship of reflective practice and anti-discriminatory concepts. Whilst choice of language might not be always be overtly conscious, it is the base of consciousness of the social actor and their psychological states, and shows how language and thought processes are inextricably linked influencing practice. As van Dijk (1999) points out in a conceptual triangle of society, discourse and social cognition, vocabulary and grammatical choices – which includes both conscious and unconscious choices – show how ideologies have cognitive dimensions that saturate individual’s ideas and thoughts, as well as a social facet which involves the conscious performance of the social actor in wider social groups and society. For critical social work, it is important for social actors to recognise that their thoughts are saturated by ideological assumptions influencing practice. Some of these thoughts stemming from wider historical and ideological forces are riddled with taken for granted and common sense assumptions.
Another reflection on this chosen methodology is the complexity and language of a number of authors in this area which is often difficult to understand and sometimes
confusing. Some dimensions can be misinterpreted easily due to the technicality of concepts and the methodology is time consuming. Notwithstanding these criticisms, the choice of methodology in utilising an explanatory as well as descriptive discourse analytic method was considered paramount in this study to capture the ‘whole’ context of social work discourses.
Finally, a commentary is needed on the most difficult aspects of this chosen methodology. It has involved a complex working through and problem-solving process with regard to presenting data in a way that illuminates how the first stage of analysis was undertaken, but without overlapping to the discursive and social dimensions analysed in chapters four and five of this thesis. According to Breeze (2011), criticisms of Fairclough’s three stage analysis include his inability to illustrate explicitly how his three stages were applied to his discussions. Breeze (2011) continues that his application of the three dimensional analysis is not presented explicitly or systematically, creating an impressionistic, rather literary, hermeneutic reading.
Notwithstanding these criticisms, the process of applying Fairclough’s seven dimensions has involved analysing segments of text systematically, utilising Nvivo for the detailed micro-level analysis. This involved re-reading of transcripts and their segments, lifting out segments of texts and aligning them to the most appropriate data analysis units devised under the seven dimensional analysis. This was a process of constant analysis of data and aligning the theories underpinning Fairclough and CDA. In others words, there was constant movement in the analysis of data and theory until dominant themes emerged.
The textual analysis involves clustering and identifying discourse themes by analysing how the properties of the text communicate genres, styles and social (historical and ideological) practices in social work. In expanding the seven dimensions to their relationship with wider ideological, historical and social forces, the discourse themes were analysed and aligned to the micro-properties (seven dimensions) again. This fosters consistency and accuracy of the theories that underpin the seven dimensions, as well as ensuring a consistent and rigorous
method was applied. The following chapter explains and illustrates how the textual analysis was undertaken, and presents summary maps and diagrams to signpost to the reader how Fairclough’s methodology was applied to this research.