Discourse analysis as a method

Due to the nature of the research methods, i.e. text and interviews, a discourse analytic approach was chosen as the methodological instrument. This section examines the different aspects of the method used in this dissertation to analyse the curricula as well as the interview data.

The word discourse has several meanings. For linguists, it generally means “sequence of sentences” (Gee, 2014, p. 18) i.e. the structure, the syntax of a sentence. Other meaning can be understood as “language-in-use” (Gee, 2014, p. 19)—how issues are expressed in linguistic structures, whether it is in text or in speech. Potter and Wetherell state, that language is importantly related to thinking and reasoning (1987, p. 9).

Gee further states that there are different approaches to discourse analysis; in one of them, the focus is in the content and in the use of language, and in the themes that can be found in the text, document, or material. The other major approach refers to the study of language structure, where the interest lies in linguistic matters (Gee, 2014, p. 8). In the present doctoral dissertation, the former approach of discourse analysis was adopted.

Gee (2014, p. 2) argues that language has several roles in people’s lives: language enables us to inform, do things and act and be who we are. Furthermore, language is born in social interactions, which allows us to be social actors with different social and individual identities. In this research, two different professional groups, with different backgrounds, are studied. The interviewed individuals have different educational backgrounds, personalities, work experiences and personal histories. The interviewees can be seen as complex representations of different levels of self and representatives of different roles:

1. As a person with a history and personal characteristics and capabilities. 2. As a representative of a certain profession.

3. As a representative of a certain working culture, workplace, social context and with certain habits.

According to Gee (2014), in language, there is a connection between saying (informing), doing (action) and being (identity). In order for us to understand each other, we need to understand what the other person is expressing and, more importantly, what we are trying to say. When considering communication from the teachers’ perspective, we need to understand each other in order to function in our different social circles. Changes in organizations, cultures, or societies often leads to changes in discourses. In today’s modern society, the nature of work has changed, importantly emphasising communication skills (Fairclough, 1992). Discourses in

71

present-day teaching have gone through significant transformation with the prevalence of information technology in education, for example, in terms of vocabulary (evident if we compare it with that of the learning environment in the 1980s and older core curricula from the 1980’s and 1990’s).

Fairclough (2003, p. 124) writes that “I see discourses as ways of representing aspects of the world—the processes, relations and structures of the material world, the ‘mental world’ of thoughts, feelings, beliefs and so forth, and the social world.” Therefore, it can be assumed that the core curricula represent aspects of the educational context in which they were created. Fairclough (2003, p. 124) further writes that “Different discourses are different perspectives on the world.” Thus, the core curricula represent the educational discourse and language.

Fairclough states that “The relationships between different discourses are one element of the relationship between different people—they may complement one another, compete with one another, one can dominate others, and so on” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 124). According to this, there is reason to believe that teachers and librarians may have different conceptions, and that differences may also exist between the strategic official educational discourse of the core curricula and those of teachers and librarians.

Jørgensen and Phillips (2002) define discourse as a changing organism. They point out that discourses change in contact with other discourses, thus presenting the idea of a “discursive struggle” where one discourse tries to win over the other. The winner of the battle would have hegemony, would be dominant (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002, pp. 6–7). Curricula are formal, neutral instruments with which teachers work adding their previous experience, knowledge, and understanding, all of which affect their teaching practice. Librarians have different experiences due to their different education and professional practises. Therefore here is an underlying expectation to find some difference in conceptions between the two professions.

Budd and Raber (1996) name discourse analytic method as interpretative. They give an example of the word information; the word information is relative since it does not point to a “single, unitary, agreed-upon substance or idea” (Budd & Raber, 1996, p. 217). There is always the possibility of interpretation and situated understanding. They furthermore connect language to communication and state that “a producer of a message has a receiver on mind” (Budd & Raber, 1996, p. 218). Therefore it can be claimed that, like in this study, the core curriculum writers have been writing the text to mainly teachers. The purpose of discourse analytical approach is to frame the research data in the chosen theoretical framework, which in this case is information literacy.

Limberg, Sundin and Talja (2012) consider discourse analysis as one of the most important methods for studying information competencies and information

72

practices. Discourse analysis aims to study the socially and culturally formed understandings about an issue (Limberg et al., 2012).

Sanna Talja (1998) used discourse analysis in her dissertation to study the conceptions and definitions of tasks, and in the selection of materials in the music library setting. Furthermore, she studied what kinds of interpretations can be found in the background. She found several interpretative repertoires in the material she studied, which consisted of interviews with 28 library users and several documents. She analysed these materials and searched for similarities and intersections. (Talja, 1998)

After her dissertation, she further studied discourse analytic approach as a method in Library and Information Science and makes a solid statement for using discourse analytic approach as method; it is an interpretative practice. The combination of text and speech (interview transcriptions) support each other and enhance generalisability (1999). Talja states that in discourse analytic approach the researcher has to understand that there are several versions of interviewees actions and beliefs, since people make interpretations; they often produce their version of the issue at hand. Her example is the word library, which for another can be “’a cradle of counter culture” or “an institution above shopping centers’”(Talja, 1999, p. 464).

Susanna Nykyri (2010) studied the vocabulary related to family in multilingual thesauri in her dissertation. She studied the translatability of British English indexing terms into Finnish on three levels—concept, term and indexing term—as well as the objective of translation. The study had a linguistic as well as sociological background and used discourse analysis as its method of analysis (Nykyri, 2010). Nykyri writes that “The discourse analytic approach offers a possibility to study differences and similarities both on the individualistic and community level.” (2010, p. 114). This perspective on discourse analysis on community level applies to the current dissertation, as its purpose is to study conceptions held by two professional fields, however, leaving individuals in the background.

Gergen (1999) argues that there are certain truths inside groups and their discourses. Discourse analysis is closely related to social constructionism. Languages and discourses are created in social actions and collaborations within specific settings. Gergen writes that “the world importantly depends on how we approach it, and how we approach it depends on the social relationships of which we are a part.” (Gergen, 2009, p. 2).

Limberg, Alexandersson and Lantz-Andersson (2008) based their research on the argument that information-seeking activities and learning take place in social practices within the discursive practices of schools. They also argue that the “sociocultural perspective also frames our understanding of information literacy, in this case, as tied to the particular context of education” (2008, p. 83).

73

Annemaree Lloyd (2007) studied newly qualified firemen in Australia and how they constructed their professional knowledge as well as workplace identity. She looked “into information literacy and workplace learning, [and considered that] an understanding of information literacy as a complex constellation of experiences and relationships with a range of information modalities is emerging.” (2007, p. 181). Lloyd found that when entering work life, there are three different modalities of information: the textual, the physical and the social (Lloyd, 2007, p. 197).

1. Textual sources act as a site of conceptual knowledge. 2. Physical sources act as a site of embodied knowledge. 3. Social sources act as a site of community knowledge.

In the discourse analytic sense, these studied materials are very different, as one contains vernacular spoken language and the other official authoritative text. A similar type of comparable analysis of these materials was required to obtain similar conceptions from both material types.

Bryman and Bell (2011, p. 11) discuss the difference between the inductive and deductive approach to research. An inductive approach was taken in the present study, as it involved extracting data from different types of materials without comparing it to any existing theories or models. Even if the aim of the research is not to construct a theory, the lack of a theory as a comparative element in the results points to inductive research. This also supports open coding and open analysis and, therefore, the discourse analytic approach also.

In their book about theme interview analysis, Hirsjärvi and Hurme (2000) present a model and structure of analysis. Firstly, all three components of the material, the core curricula of 2004 and 2014 and the 10 interviews, were read several times during which categories and themes were formulated. Open coding was used because in this type of study the findings and themes emerge from the material. Categories were created and summarised after which a synthesis was done with every empirical part separately. Quotations are provided to verify the interpretations of the researcher. Subsequently, comparisons between the different materials and interpretation were made. The analysis results are presented in relatively large tables.

Visual representations in form of word clouds were created from the different conceptions. They are presented to give understanding of how these terms and their weight and significance are related in the minds of the interviewees. The word clouds also reveal the weight of the issues in the found conceptions.

74