Discourse Analysis: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations

Discourse analysis is not simply a methodological alternative to traditional

methodologies in social psychological research. As Wood and Kroger (2000) note, it is an alternative perspective on social life that is informed by particular assumptions about

language or discourse (conceptual elements) and includes ways of working with discourse as data (methodological elements). The conceptual and methodological elements of discourse analysis stem from the onto-epistemological assumptions of its governing paradigm, social constructionism. The ontology of such research recognises the world not as an entity ‘out there’ but as socially or discursively constructed through language. Discourse analysis therefore assumes a relativist epistemology in contrast to the assumptions of realism that underpin positivist research. The emphasis is therefore on “the multiple and relative rather than the singular reality-reflecting status” of the world (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p. 13).

Since, from a discursive perspective, people are seen to actively employ particular constructions of the world in order to accomplish social actions, this conceptual shift in focus from what people are talking about to what they are doing with their talk requires parallel shifts in the methodological features associated with discourse research (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). The organising principle guiding the analysis of data in discourse analytic research advocates a definitive focus on “discourse - and, in particular, the ways in which discourse is oriented to actions within settings, the way representations are constructed and oriented to action” (Wiggins & Potter, 2008, p. 74). In other words, it is important to consider not only the content of people’s talk but also what their talk is designed to achieve. This presupposes the importance of considering both the immediate interactive context as well as the broader, ideological context in which accounts are produced in an analysis of discourse.

Given the conceptual and methodological underpinnings of discourse analysis highlighted above, in this study, participants’ narratives and identity constructions were interpreted and analysed as socially organised action, systematically and deliberately employed to address their interactional and inferential concerns in both the local context of their production (the interview) as well as in the broader, social or discursive context (Edley, 2001).

1.1. A Discursive Psychology Approach to Investigating Identity.

This research drew upon the theoretical assumptions and methodological features of a field of research within the broader tradition of discourse analysis, known as discursive psychology. Discursive psychology, also referred to as Discourse Analysis in Social Psychology or DASP, (cf. Wood & Kroger, 2000) reflects a critique of the assumptions of traditional psychology and its consequent methods used for investigation. In short, Wooffitt (2005, p. 113) notes that discursive psychology is “nothing less than a thorough reworking of the subject matter of psychology” and involves the application of the discursive perspective to the subject matter of social psychology. It is premised by the understanding that people are social and relational and that psychology is “a domain of practice rather than abstract

contemplation” (Wiggins & Potter, 2008, p. 73).

In the discipline of psychology, identity has been examined from numerous

perspectives. Traditional social psychological models view the self as an entity which can be definitively described, a self that “has one true nature or set of characteristics waiting to be discovered” (Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p. 95). Trait theory, for example posits the self as consisting of various traits, attributes and abilities that culminate in the self as ‘a personality’ (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). From this perspective, identity equates to the sum of peoples’ personality traits and dispositions. Variations may exist across these traits and dispositions and they may change over time as people develop (Baron & Byrne, 1997), but, in essence,

our identities and sense of self derive from, and are determined by, our personality traits. In a similar vein, Role Theory maintains that people acquire a sense of identity by the roles they have to play within society (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Being a mother, a husband, a student – these are all seen as social roles people play. People need to learn how to inhabit these roles and how to act appropriately in them and it is in occupying these social positions that people acquire a sense of self. From this perspective, identity is not derived from certain personality characteristics but rather is learned from the roles people assume. Even though a person may assume a variety of roles, nonetheless, each role exists as a definitive entity (Potter &

Wetherell, 1987).

Discourse analysts approach the concept of identity differently from traditional social psychological conceptions. A discursive psychology approach, as with most other forms of discourse analytic research, requires a shift in focus to how psychological ‘things’ – such as identity –are brought into existence through people’s talk. From this perspective, identities do not exist independently to their construction: It is through language or discourse that people are able to construct certain identities or selves (White & Lowenthal, 2011). Establishing an identity is thus a discursive accomplishment (Edley, 2001; Wood & Kroger, 2000). It is a complicated, ongoing process that is dynamic in nature and is interactionally achieved between social actors (Jacoby & Gonzales, 1991).

From this language approach to the self, the focus is not on discovering the true nature of the self, but rather on how the self is talked about or theorised in peoples’ discourse (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). As Taylor (2007, p. 5) notes, “talk is understood as the site in which identity is instantiated and negotiated so the ‘identity work’ of speakers is investigated through the analysis of their talk”. Identity is constructed in discourse “as individuals lay claim to various recognisable social or shared identities” (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2004, p. 237). It follows, then, that there is not one self to be discovered but rather “a multitude of selves”

found in different kinds of linguistic practices available to speakers (Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p. 102). By implication, identity is therefore also not stable or consistent but rather “fleeting, incoherent and fragmented” and continually subject to renegotiation (Edley, 2001, p. 195). (A full exposition of the analytic techniques employed to examine the identity constructions of participants in this study follows in Section 3.7).