Discourse analysis

Adopting a post-structuralist approach to the research led to the consideration of a range of discourse analysis techniques when deciding on a method of analysis. The focus of discourse analysis is to question the common sense and inevitable truths and reveal how discourses constrain what can be thought, said and done and to show how subjects are constructed by discourse rather than being its originator (Fadyl, Nicholls and McPhereson, 2012).

Discourse analysis is a valuable methodology in the analysis of education (Maclure 2003). However, just as post-structuralism is difficult to define due to the lack of description of what it entails, discourse analysis is difficult to undertake due to the differing and sometimes conflicting opinions around the different approaches. Fadyl, Nicholls and McPherson (2012) argue that research design and methodology should be applied as appropriate to a particular area of study.

This research takes the approach that particular discourses shape our social world. In order to understand this process, it is essential to analyse the discourses to uncover any taken for granted assumptions and binary oppositions which are working to reproduce inequalities and maintain power imbalances across the education landscape. This involves examining the use of language as well as studying how students’ experiences and identities are

constructed by ways of thinking and speaking. Language and discourses are examined with the aim of developing an understanding of how practices shape and limit how individuals can think, converse, and act (Hodges, Kuper and Reeves, 2008).

94

Critical discourse analysis was considered as an approach to analysing the data because of its aim to construct and share critical knowledge and understanding that enables individuals to free themselves from types of domination by enlightening them (Wodak and Meyer, 2009). Critical discourse analysis aims not only to describe and explain, it also aims to uncover a particular type of delusion or misunderstanding which Bourdieu conceptualised as ‘meconnaisance’ or ‘misrecognition’ (Bourdieu, 1989, cited in Wodak and Meyer, 2009, p7). This is what makes such an approach critical; its ambition to demonstrate non-apparent ways that language is involved in social relations of power and domination of individuals (Fairclough in Wetherell et al, 2001). Critical discourse analysis was discounted as a method of analysis within this study, however, because of the approach’s claims to objectivity and truth. Post-structuralist approaches believe that such a search for truth, clarity and simple meaning is an illusion because there will always be different perspectives that can be adopted and different meanings which will be interpreted. Where Critical discourse analysis lays claim to truth, post-structuralist approaches aim to avoid replacing one truth for

another, such an approach recognises that there is no absolute truth, analysis in research is always interpretive, conditional and merely a version from a particular standpoint. Trying to produce a definitive account of the experiences of HE-in-FE students and how they are shaped by discourse is therefore a misguided endeavour (Graham, 2005). It is also important to note that the point of educational research is not simply to be critical. Post- structuralism shares the concern of Critical discourse analysis about the relationship

between language, social processes and power, however, the two approaches offer different forms of analysis which simply confirms that there will always be different perspectives from which interpretation can be framed. The aim of discourse analysis is to uncover how

discourses have developed, how they work to order and exclude, and what the outcomes have been for those involved (Grbich, 2013). In this case the analysis aims to identify and

95

track the operation of powerful discourses shaping the experiences of non-traditional students studying HE-in-FE.

A Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis has been adopted as it allows the research to challenge ways of thinking about HE-in-FE students experiences and widening participation discourses that have come to be seen as natural and thus taken for granted. It allows the research to consider how HE-in-FE student experience has come to be the way that it is and how it remains this way.

Foucault never stipulated methodological guidelines; he was committed to adapting his methodological approach to achieve the aims of each research project. Foucault actively resisted developing a specific method or recipe for carrying out discourse analysis (Given, 2008). It has been argued that the key to conducting robust research using Foucault’s approach is to apply his ideas as appropriate for the research’s particular focus ensuring coherence and congruence with post-structuralist theoretical and philosophical approaches. There are difficulties in taking such an approach when thinking about how to design and carry out a study. The difficulty is that there is plenty of theoretical information but very little practical advice (Fadyl, Nicholls and McPhereson, 2012). Instead of specifying how discourse analysis should be carried out, Foucault developed a body of theoretical work what provides a way of understanding that underpins how research is framed within a Foucauldian approach. Such understandings provide a set of tools which can be used to shape the process of discourse analysis (Given, 2008). The aim of this discourse analysis is to make explicit the ways in which the widening participation discourse operates in HE-in-FE and the effects it has on student experience, approaching this analysis with a Foucauldian theoretical lens is thus appropriate in achieving this aim.

96