Discourse analysis

As discourse analysis is not a single method of analysis but rather a broad field of research and analysis, there is not one way of conducting a discourse

analysis, and the researcher must select the most appropriate approach for the research field, philosophies, interest and objectives (Naples, 2003; Phillips & Hardy, 2002). Discourse analysis “contains, first, philosophical (ontological and epistemological) premises regarding the role of language in the social construction of the world, second, theoretical models, third, methodological guidelines for how to approach a research domain, and fourth, specific techniques for analysis” (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2002, p. 4). As C. Lewis (2006) noted, however, such a discourse analysis is not an end in itself, and the discursive analyst still needs research questions and purposes.

The discourse analysis was not conducted in order to ‘find’ assumed discourses or practices; the discourse analysis steps/stages were not presumed to highlight “inevitably oppressive” discourses (Naples, 2003, p. 145). The lenses lent by Carabine’s (2001) and Fairclough’s (2001) approaches enabled

the researcher to examine for discourses and themes, not necessarily find them; “familiarity with such a range of theory and empirical work gives you tools to see more and say more above the particular things you’re studying” (Nespor, 2006, p. 299). This perspective was in keeping with the employment of a constructivist grounded theory coding analysis, which is inductive and takes theory from the data rather than deductively seek to verify or refute pre- conceived theory through the data.

Discourse analysis, as employed in this study, is concerned with the broader issues and themes identified through the language (test session and interview transcripts) that represent the more overarching patterns of power, meaning-making, interpretation, coping and expectation, for instance. Again, in this way, the discourse analysis and its findings build on the results of the coding analysis, by considering the theoretical issues and discursive patterns in an ideologically-influenced frame of analysis.

This adopted discourse analysis approach questions the ways that the practices reinforce or challenge hegemonies and norms, the social implications of the discourses within the wider power contexts, representations and sites of contestation (Carabine; Fairclough; Phillips & Hardy, 2002; Rowan, 2001; Taylor, 2001a, 2001b). This discourse analysis approach also questions and problematises forms, manifestations and effects of power, important because “power reaches into the very grain of individuals … inserts itself into their actions and attitudes, their discourses, learning processes and everyday lives” (Foucault, 1980, p. 39).

Within this study, the content of collected data are examined, following the constructivist grounded theory coding approach, to construct and highlight “broad social, cultural, and ideological processes” (Bloome & Clark, 2006, p. 227), in this case the larger phenomena and tensions suggested through the participants’ accounts of standardised literacy testing. The understanding of, and approach to, discourses and discourse analysis underpinning this study provides the tools to look beyond the linguistic meanings and, instead, highlight, interpret and examine the social practices and tensions within the participants’ articulated experiences of the testing phenomenon.

The school site where the data were collected allows exploration of an evident “subject of inquiry” and clarifies an “obvious discursive struggle so that discursive activity was clearly evident and likely to be linked to ways in which individual actors sought to protect their interests” (Phillips & Hardy, 2002, p. 67). Some discourses will be more dominant, powerful, influential and authoritarian than others (Carabine, 2001; Fairclough, 2001). The school site shows the ways in which test-related discourses are “productive in that they have power outcomes or effects. They define and establish what is ‘truth’ at particular moments” (Carabine, p. 268).

Carabine’s (2001) discourse analysis steps adapted and employed in this research are:

1 Select your topic – identify possible sources of data 2 Know your data

3 Identify codes, categories, themes and dominant discourses

4 Look for evidence of an inter-relationship between discourses

5 Identify the discursive strategies and techniques that are employed

6 Look for absences and silences

7 Look for resistances and counter-discourses 8 Identify the effects of the discourse

9 Context 1 – Outline the background to the issue 10 Context 2 – Contextualise the material in the power/knowledge networks

11 Be aware of the limitations of the research, your data and sources. (Carabine, 2001, p. 281)

Figure 3-4. Carabine’s (2001) adapted discourse analysis steps.

The first three steps were undertaken through the coding analysis, and within step 4, interrelationship between key themes as well as discourses increased critical, initial understanding of the data concepts and patterns, facilitating the coding stages. The remaining discourse analysis steps were not necessarily examined and addressed in the order listed above, as the particular elements or aspects of the dominant discourses were not necessarily be

identifiable in any set order.

Across the discourse analysis was necessitated an identification and contextualisation of the ways that the discourses are perpetuated at the school

level of standardised literacy testing and shape participants’ experiences and realities. It also involved questioning what is not present, necessitating the researcher’s actions “to follow up gaps in analysis: to identify what is inferred but not mentioned; expected but absent; to identify limitations of dominant discourses” (Budd, 2009, pp. 93-94). Absences and silences can be as

revealing as what is explicitly present, as they can indicate hidden or taken-for- granted assumptions and shed further light on the effects of discourses, as well as highlight reasons for the silencing of voices or ideas (Taras, 2007).

Identification of examples in the data of counter-discourses and of resistances to dominant discourses was important as these provide interesting opposition to normalised practices, expectations and opinions. Here,

participants’ attempts to challenge or subvert the dominant discourses were examined, as were their effect on the dominant discourses or contribution to identified discursive tensions and struggle. The effects of the discourses identify and examine the ways that they shape participants’ and possibly other test actors’ experiences of the testing discourses. In examining this aspect, broader contexts were considered also, as the discourses effects on the contextual framework.

Context was considered in chapters one and two. Chapter One outlined the background of standardised literacy testing in Tasmanian secondary

schools, and Chapter Two expanded on this by positioning the research in the context of debates regarding standardised literacy testing, the politics

surrounding and permeating the area in its broad sense. Chapters six and seven, through analysis and findings, increasingly expand and examine the

contextual issues pertaining to the research. Research limitations are discussed in Chapter Seven. This includes critical discussion of the limitations of the study, including possible limitations resulting from the researcher’s influence. This stage also raises possible methodological, theoretical and practical

considerations for other research projects.

In addition to Carabine’s (2001) work, Fairclough’s (2001) discourse analysis steps were influential. This research adapted and employed these stages:

Stage 2 Identify obstacles to the social problem being tackled.

a) the network of practices it is located within c) the discourse (the semiosis itself)

Stage 3 Consider whether the social order (network of practices) ‘needs’ the problem.

Stage 4 Identify possible ways past the obstacles. Stage 5 Reflect critically on the analysis (Stages 1-4). (Fairclough, 2001, p. 236)

Figure 3-5. Fairclough’s (2001) adapted discourse analysis steps.

In the context of this research, the social problem is an educational phenomenon that represents an educational, perhaps social and political, problematic for test actors. Further, from its extension in politics and society in Tasmania, the phenomenon has potential for wide social and political effects. The ‘problem’ of issues within teacher administration of standardised literacy testing was examined in terms of the broader networks of practices

within which standardised literacy testing is located in an educational sense. Alongside the identification of the ‘problem’ is the questioning of who benefits from the current state, and why. This means examining the purposes served by those issues participants recognised within standardised literacy testing, and by participants’ chosen ways of reacting and responding to the standardised literacy testing phenomenon.

This discourse analysis approach “looks for hitherto unrealized possibilities for change in the way social life is currently organized” (Fairclough, 2001, p. 236), to identify ways that the data and the broader literature and results of other research presented solutions or alternatives. This is explored in the final two chapters, particularly in the study recommendations (Chapter Seven). The recommendations and research limitations address the final stages of this discourse analysis approach, as also the above-mentioned step 11 of the Carabine discourse analysis approach.