Discourse-historical approach

The approach adopted within this study is predominately associated with Ruth Wodak (1996; 2001; 2011) and Reisigl and Wodak (2001). Studies conducted using this framework include discourses of sexism (Wodak, 1997), racism and anti-Semitism (van Leeuwen and Wodak, 1999; Reisigl and Wodak, 2001), national identity (Wodak et al., 2009) politics (Wodak, 2011) and disability (Grue, 2009; 2013; 2015). What makes it mildly different from the previous approaches mentioned is its analysis on the historical contexts and the use of discursive strategies.

Critical Discourse Analysis’s central theme is its critical attitude to analysing discourse. As a critical theoretical approach, mental health, reasonable adjustments, and fitness requirements are not solely described (Baker et al., 2008), but attempts are made to explain their origins. The intention is to

81

unmask the circumstances for their emergence, preservation and resistance of discrimination by text (Reisigl and Wodak, 2009). Text in this context refers to ‘the written or spoken language produced in a discursive

event’ (Fairclough, 1993, p. 138).

Discourse-historical approach adopts a socio-philosophical orientation of critical theory and therefore takes into account three dimensions of critique in order to gain distance from the data. The first dimension; discourse immanent critique enabled me to examine and identify discourse inconsistencies, contradictions and dilemmas (Wodak, 2001) as they appear and reveal how they are sanctioned and transformed through discursive strategies. The critique also enabled me to explore suppression, in that what is not included in the text will be revealed (Billig, 1991).

The second dimension; socio-diagnostic critique is concerned with illuminating persuasive and manipulative elements of discursive practices transparent. It is concerned with identifying social and political goals and functions of discursive strategies, exposing the responsibilities and speakers contradictory, opposing, ambivalent claims and interests from either discourse, contextual, social, historical and political knowledge (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001). The dimension allows for my own background and knowledge to come through which allows a normative framework to identify fallacious and sound argumentations (Reisigl, 2014).

Finally the third dimension; prospective critique aims to make the discourses transparent and contribute to the improvement of communication with the intention of avoiding disablist language in the future (Wodak, 2001). This will be achieved illustrating the status quo and its influence on students which will then enable the development of a revised picture which works towards the emancipation of disabled students.

82

4.6.7.1 Discursive strategies

Fundamental to discourse-historical approach is the attention towards the use of discursive strategies. Reisigl and Wodak (2001) define strategy as a specific and more or less deliberate plan of practices in order to achieve social, political, psychological or linguistic aims. A discursive strategy is a systematic approach of language use (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001). The analytic approach aims to analyse the justifications for discursive strategies and their persuasive nature, stemming from implicit social opinions conceivably taken for granted, potentially unchallenged (van Dijk, 2005) and legitimised (van Leeuwen and Wodak, 1999). The discursive strategies investigated are drawn from Reisigl and Wodak’s (2001) research on racism.

The first strategies to be investigated are referential strategies, also known as nomination strategies. These are ways in which the texts construct and represent students with a mental health label. Texts can demonstrate a referential strategy which reference in-groups and out-groups by membership categorisation devices like medical, depersonalising metaphors, metonymies (figure of speech whereby something is not called by their own name), synecdoches (simultaneous understandings (also a figure of speech whereby for example a person is referred to in the form of a part to represent a whole). Referential strategies can identify people or groups by derogatory terms, insulting meanings with no justification in order to perform disablist utterances (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001).

The second, predicational strategies are demonstrated when a person or group is linguistically referred to through stereotypical and evaluative traits both implicit and explicit. The strategies intentions are to label a person or group either positively or negatively. They are employed to attribute particular discursive characteristics of participants, phenomena, events and actions. They allow the construction of ‘them’ and ‘us’, enabling the speaker or writer to make negative or positive judgements about people or groups (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001).

83

Third, are argumentation strategies, which are ways in which people or groups attempt to justify, legitimise or refute the exclusion, discrimination, prejudice, suppression and exploitation of others, with the aim of establishing agreement (van Eemeren et al., 2010). The study of argumentation is to illustrate how conclusions are reached and how the premises of such conclusions can be explicitly implied or communicated implicitly without declaring them, making them more persuasive and less likely to be challenged (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001). These are achieved through topoi; parts of an argument which belongs to the proposition. They are the conclusion rules which link the argument to the conclusion (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001). For instance, the topos of danger justifies the conclusion that students with a mental health label considered dangerous should be prevented from entering the nursing and midwifery profession.

Perspectivisation strategies focus on positioning participants or writer’s point of view. This can be demonstrated by strategies of involvement by placing self within the discourse. This can be established by references including ‘we’ or ‘I’. As well as involvement, people may also refer to others in order to distance self from the discourse, or make reference to how they position themselves in relation to others. An additional distancing strategy may include speakers who make reference to derogatory assertions but illustrated through direct quotes as representatives of other peoples’ views (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001).

The final discursive strategy is through intensification or mitigation. Intensification is how people make utterances overtly which sharpen their point or claim. Mitigation is how the claim is made less serious or by the use of individual words, for example, ‘perhaps’ or ‘likely’. Throughout all of these discursive strategies, the speaker or writer may demonstrate positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001).

84 4.7 Conclusion

The chapter has explored my ontological and epistemological positions which prior to the start of this project, was assumed to adopt social constructionism. Through my exploration around philosophical dimensions of mental ill health, I came to identify with critical realism. It is my belief that mental ill health has realist ontology but the language we apply to mental ill health has a social constructionist epistemology.

In response to the gaps identified in the literature review, I refined my research questions and chose to critically analyse discourse and its influence on nursing and midwifery educators and students’ understanding of mental ill health, reasonable adjustments and fitness standards. This chapter has shown how I selected discourse-historical approach from the array of discourse analysis methodologies appropriate for an emancipatory research paradigm. A detailed account of the principles of CDA and their interaction with critique, power and ideology has been presented. As part of the discourse-historical approach, a detailed explanation of discursive strategies including argumentation has been explored. The following chapter will present a detailed discussion on how the research was designed and the data collection methods to address the research questions.

85