Discourse analysis

Pioneers of the discursive psychology approach are Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell, who provided a compelling critique of the cognitivism of social psychology, and set out a methodological alternative to the experiments and questionnaires that had dominated research practice (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Their discursive psychology approach focuses on the ways in which individuals negotiate meaning in everyday social interactions (Wiggins & Potter, 2011). Additionally, this approach is interested in the ways in which language is used in a performative way, in the construction of social accounts to achieve a goal or construct a particular identity (Burr, 2015, p. 19). In contrast to other discourse analytic approaches, discursive psychology is best suited to analysing naturally occurring speech or interaction (Willig, 2013a). The reason being that with data derived through formal research interviews, the focus of the analysis can become more oriented towards the performative function of language in managing the interviewee’s stake in the interview process and the study, rather than on the research objectives themselves (Willig, 2013a, p. 348). As such, discourse analyses from a discursive psychology perspective tend to favour data derived from, for example, professional consultations.

In analysing such consultations, the objective is to understand how participants employ discourse to achieve a particular objective. For example, a parent might draw on particular medical or pathological discourses to position their child as distinctly different from other children of the same age, and thus requiring some form of attention or intervention. If parents are suitably privy to the required medical discourses, they may employ particular words or expressions that would ensure that their account of their child’s development or behaviour meets the criteria or requirements for a diagnosis, and as a consequence referral

54

for more robust intervention. Similarly, asylum seekers, for example, may employ particular discursive resources to ensure that accounts of their experiences are reflective of the institutional requirements to achieve the status of asylum seeker. Thus, the approach seeks to examine simultaneously how people employ discursive resources to bring about a social action, and illustrate the power interplays of institutional norms, and practices, and these discursive resources. Burr (2015, pp. 24-25) helpfully categorises this approach as “micro social constructionism” due to the focus on the localised use of discourse, in contrast to the “macro social constructionism” of Foucauldian inspired approaches. A Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis takes a slightly different perspective, and aims to examine the ways in which problems are constructed through discourses, and, as a consequence, the ways in which people are constituted as particular types of subjects. While reflective of the principles of social constructionism described in Section 4.1, Foucault’s later work has resulted in him being most often described as a poststructuralist. Structuralism and poststructuralism have heavily influenced the study of language, and so here I will briefly describe the two perspectives while also illustrating the relation between poststructuralist ideas and social constructionism. Of particular importance here is the work of structuralist and linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). From a linguistics perspective, the underpinning principle of structuralism is that concepts can only be recognised and understood through their relation to other concepts within an overarching structure of language. However, some notable findings from de Saussure’s study of structural linguistics (de Saussure, 1974), resulted in a questioning of the idea that there does exist a universal structure of language. For example, de Saussure illustrated the arbitrary nature of concepts which are not consistent across languages. As a consequence it is not always possible to produce exact translations of speech or texts due to concepts existing in some languages which do not appear in others (Burr, 2015, p. 59). Additionally, de Saussure suggested that for languages to function concepts must become ‘fixed’ so that everybody is using the same concept to describe the same thing. While perhaps the case for many concepts in a language, this latter point cannot be said to be true for all, as some concepts have had their meaning changed over time. Burr (2015, p. 61) uses the example of the word “gay”, which has in the past been used to describe someone as “happy and joyful” but is now predominantly used to describe people who have same-sex relationships. Thus, poststructuralism, like social constructionism, rejects the idea that language follows an ordered structure and can thus act as a mirror into reality. Rather than focusing on the concepts themselves, both perspectives are attuned to the historical and cultural specificity of language, and are interested in the conditions which give rise to different concepts and language, and their relationship to reality and social action.

55

In summarising the distinction between the two approaches to discourse analysis, Willig (2013a, p. 344) outlines that:

While discursive psychology is primarily concerned with how people use discursive resources in order to achieve interpersonal objectives in social interaction,

Foucauldian discourse analysis focuses upon what kind of objects and subjects are constructed through discourses and what kinds of ways-of-being these objects and subjects make available to people. (emphasis in original)

Some authors have made the case for combining approaches within a single study (Wetherell, 1998), which would allow for dual analysis of the micro, and macro, levels of social constructionism (Burr, 2015, pp. 24-25). However, the aims of this thesis were specifically oriented towards understanding how the upstream counter-discourse operates to shape problematisations of health inequalities, and, as a consequence, shapes implications for action. As such, I opted to employ a purely FDA approach that, as Willig (2013b) outlines above, would allow for analysis of the kinds of objects and subjects constructed through discourse. To answer the research questions of the thesis, two different datasets would be required.