Critical Discourse Analysis

The second element of qualitative data analysis used in the study was CDA, which is a branch of discourse analysis; however, CDA is a means of criticising or critiquing the social order of power and inequality in language (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Van Dijk, 2001). In other words, it is critical because it is rooted in a thorough

critique of social relations (Billig, 2003). CDA “primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context” (Van Dijk, 2001, p. 352). Thus, the use of CDA within the study was to observe and determine the areas where social power,

dominance, and inequality were enacted, reproduced, and resisted through the text and talk of colleagues and informants of IMGs.

5.6.2.2.1 Background

Critical Discourse Analysis is not defined by one specific theory or methodology; however, it is informed by a wide range of approaches, which draws on linguistics, psychology and sociology (Wodak, 2002; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Those who have used CDA are from diverse disciplines and are informed by varied data and

methodologies. Therefore, there are many various approaches to CDA that at times can be theoretically and analytically diverse. For example, a CDA approach may be quite different when analysing personal conversation, political discourse or even media discourse (Van Dijk, 2001). This heterogeneous paradigm and methodology allows innovation, flexibility and improvement, when compared to other theories (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Wodak, 2002; Wodak & Meyer, 2009).

Critical Discourse Analysis is unlike thematic analysis, which identifies patterns of living, behaviour and experience which is then described as a phenomenon (Aronson, 1994; Braun & Clarke, 2006; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2008). CDA has moved beyond simply describing discursive practices to illustrating how discourse is fashioned and developed by its relationship with power and ideologies (Billig, 2003; Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000). CDA due to its diversity of methodologies

incorporates viewpoints such as ideology, hegemony and discourse to explore language and power relationships within societies (Dunmire, 2011; Van Dijk, 2001; Wodak, 2002; Wodak & Meyer, 2009).

Critical Discourse Analysis aims to bring this power out of obscurity and make it more discernible. Blommaert and Bulcaen (2000, p. 449) when discussing CDA, state it “should have effects in society: empowering the powerless, giving voices to the voiceless, exposing power abuse, and mobilizing people to remedy social wrongs.” As outlined, CDA considers language is a social practice where a relationship exists between an event and the situation in which it occurs (Wodak, 2002; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). In addition, the context of where the language being used occurs is seen as being vital. As such, discourse establishes

situations, objects of knowledge, and the social identities of and relationships between people and groups of people. It… helps to sustain and reproduce the social status quo [and] can help produce and reproduce unequal power relations between… social classes, women and men, and ethnic/cultural majorities and minorities. (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997, p. 258)

To achieve this, CDA occurs at three levels, the micro, meso and the macro. At the micro level, discourse needs to be systematically analysed with the view of

‘discourse-as-text.’ This approach requires discourse to be analysed in terms of the linguistic patterns used and the organisation of the text, including vocabulary, grammar and how the text is structured (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Fairclough, 1992).

At the meso level, ‘discourse-as-discursive-practice,’ discourse is analysed as being text that has been produced, circulated, distributed, and consumed within a community or society. The analysis focuses on speech acts, coherence and intertextuality, which all link text to its context (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Fairclough, 1992).

Finally, discourse at the macro level, ‘discourse-as-social-practice’ is where CDA is concerned with hegemony and changing hegemony (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Fairclough, 1992). This level of exploration analyses “the way in which discourse is represented, re-spoken, or rewritten. [It] sheds light on the emergence of new orders of discourse, struggles over normativity, attempts at control, and resistance against regimes of power” (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000, p. 449).

Nevertheless, Blommaert and Bulcaen (2000), highlight those who use CDA have a preponderance to analyse discourse with a view which is biased by their own political views and prejudices of the discourse (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Schegloff, 1997). However, Van Dijk (2001, p. 352) argues those researchers who engage in CDA must assume an unambiguous position as their aim is to

In addition to the levels of analysis, there are also a number of social domains of analysis such as power inequity, inequalities and exploitation, where various topics are analysed. These may include, but are not limited to political discourse, ideology, racism, ethnocentrism and immigration, gender, economic discourse, media

discourse, advertising discourse, institutional discourse and education (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Van Dijk, 2001).

5.6.2.2.2 Method of approach within the study

For the purposes of the study, the method used was a ‘systematic and focused framework’ to explore the language and power relationships between and among those who have contact with IMGs in the Tasmanian context. CDA was undertaken to examine informant discourse in terms of the linguistic patterns used and how the discourse was used by informants who were interviewed. This analysis included the use of vocabulary, grammar and how the discourse was structured (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Fairclough, 1992). In addition, the central focus was on the social domains of intolerance, ethnocentrism, and immigration with regard to power and dominance of specific social groups such as institutional, professional or group discourse which is highlighted through the analysis of informant data (Van Dijk, 2001).

Initially, to critically analyse the data, a similar approach to thematic analysis outlined earlier was used. An initial examination of the vocabulary, grammar and linguistic patterns, including how the discourse was spoken by informants was conducted. Throughout this process key phrases and words were identified from the data, which were then placed into corresponding pre-classified or newly identified themes. This analysis was then followed by breaking these data groups into smaller groups of data. The discourse was then analysed in terms of how it is produced within the context of the views of migrants and different cultures in Australia including the social hegemony within the workplace. Similar to thematic analysis, the process was to assemble singular, small, meaningless words or

phrases, which allowed a more comprehensive picture of the power and hegemony within the informant cohort (Aronson, 1994; Boyatzis, 1998) (see Appendix I).

Once this initial analysis was completed, an analysis of the contemporary political, media, and nationwide discourse was conducted. It highlighted and outlined the discourse which contributes to current ethnocentrism and immigration discourse within Australia. The literature then assisted the critical analysis of key informant discourse in Tasmania. Inferences were made from the rich data collected, identifying micro, meso, and macro level discourse which was being used by

informants and workplace colleagues when discussing IMGs. The literature provided unique insights into the underlying ideology and hegemony between informants, IMGs, within the workplace and among the associated professional bodies. Critical Discourse Analysis has been briefly outlined above, yet is a complex framework which is informed a large number of approaches to critically analyse discourse (Van Dijk, 2001; Wodak, 2002; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). CDA is about understanding the relationship between discourse and power within text and speech. However, it moves beyond understanding, to acts as a means to “make proposals for change and suggest corrections to particular discourses. CDA thus openly professes strong commitments to change, empowerment, and practice- orientedness” (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000, p. 449).

5.7 Conclusion

The research aim and objectives guide the research questions in the current study. However, the mixed method techniques, using a double stage sequential

explorative design, are used to collect data for the study. The analytical framework of the study to examine the acculturation of IMGs is ambitious; however, to answer the research questions, this multifaceted structure is used to enable the

identification and comparison of known themes with similar studies of IMGs. This method also provides the ability to uncover and develop new theories that emulate from the textual information from the questionnaire and interviews. Finally, this method of analysis provides the capacity to evaluate the social order of power and inequality in language, regarding IMGs who live and work in Tasmania.

The study findings are presented in the following two chapters, which highlight, compare and generate discussion concerning the experiences and challenges of

IMGs living and working in rural and remote Tasmania, and how this informs their acculturation. The findings are discussed both visually and thematically using a number of noteworthy quotations and graphics within in the thesis. The following chapter presents the analysis of quantitative data from the Tasmanian International Medical Graduate questionnaire conducted across Tasmania.

6

Chapter six: Quantitative data analysis

and results

6.1 Introduction

The preceding chapter introduced and described the research framework and design of the study. This chapter is the first of two results chapters in this thesis. It highlights results of the data collected from 105 IMG respondents to the Tasmanian International Medical Graduate questionnaire. These IMG respondents included interns, RMOs, registrars, specialists and GPs working full or part time across Tasmania. This cross-sectional questionnaire was used to respond to the research question one (RQ1) “What are the enablers and barriers which IMGs encounter as they live and work in Tasmanian communities?”

The questionnaire explores the issues, commonalities and questions which were both descriptive and analytical, using a number of statistical methods. The findings presented in this chapter include a discussion regarding the characteristics of IMG respondents including issues such as mobility, patterns of migration and the motivations for moving to Australia and Tasmania. In addition, results relating to satisfaction within the workplace and non-professional aspects of living in Tasmania are reported. The chapter concludes by using inferential statistics to highlight which factors contribute to the integration of IMGs, their retention and length of stay in Tasmania.