InterpretaRve Repertoires

One of the central aspects of discourse analysis is the use of interpreJve repertoires. Poper (1996b: 115) cites that an overriding finding from work concerning scienJfic discourse is that scienJsts tend to draw on different vocabularies (interpretaJve repertoires) for work related discourse. A repertoire is a “broadly discernible clusters of terms, descripJons, commonplaces…

and figures of speech owen clustered around metaphors of vivid images and owen using disJnct grammaJcal construcJons and styles” (Poper et al, 1990: 212). Poper and Wetherell (1987: 149) depict these as “recurrently used systems of terms used for characterising and evaluaJng acJons, events and other phenomena”. Wooffip (2005: 35) elaborates further and describes how such

“repertoires may be characterised by a disJncJve vocabulary, parJcular grammaJcal and stylisJc features, and the occurrence of specific figures of speech, idiomaJc expressions and metaphors”.

Poper (1996c) elaborates on earlier definiJons:

“InterpreJve repertoires are systemaJcally related sets of terms, owen used with stylisJc and grammaJcal coherence, and owen organised around one or more central metaphors. They are historically developed and make up an important part of of the common sense of a culture; although some may be specific to

insJtuJonal domains. The idea of an interpretaJve repertoire is intended to accommodate to the the twin consideraJons that there are resources available with an off-the-shelf character that can be used in a range of different seungs to do parJcular tasks, and that these resources have a more bespoke flexibility which allows them to be selecJvely drawn on and reworked according to the seung…ParJcipants will owen draw on a number of different repertoires, fliung between them as they construct the sense of a parJcular phenomenon, or as they perform different acJons.”

(Poper, 1996c: 31-32)

Poper and Wetherell (1987) depict the advantages of the analyJc noJon of linguisJc interpretaJve repertoires compared with social representaJons:

“…repertoires are not constructed as enJJes intrinsically linked to social groups, so research has not been hampered by the need to engage in the owen problemaJc exercise of idenJfying natural group boundaries…

it is much more frui{ul to accept that repertoires are available to people with many different group memberships, and paperns of accounJng may not be the neatest way of dividing up society, or confirming

convenJonal group categorisaJons...in discourse analysis, groups and the way they are constructed in the course of accounts have become an important topic of research in themselves…

…there is no apempt in discourse analysis to find consensus in the use of repertoires in the sense that some people are found to always use a certain repertoire, and certain people another... InterpretaJve repertoires are used to perform different sorts of accounJng tasks. Because people go through life faced with an ever changing kaleidoscope of situaJons... analysts do not assume that on other occasions these people would necessarily produce the same repertoire…”

(Poper and Wetherell, 1987: 156-157)

Broadly, each repertoire can be considered as a resource that an individual (or group) implements in their discourse to construct versions of reality in a communicaJve context. There is no analysis of the mental, cogniJve underpinning processes behind these - such as autudes or beliefs. The analyJcal focus remains solely on the use of language and the way the people construct their accounts for different purposes.

The labelling of ‘interpretaJve repertoire’ is used to distance and to avoid abstracJon when analysing discourses, emphasising them as an acJve resource used as a form of social acJon (Poper and Wetherell, 1987; Wetherell and Poper, 1988, 1992):

“The aim of the analysis is not to categorise people (for example, as naJonalists, racists or ‘green’

consumers) but to idenJfy the discursive pracJces through which the categories are constructed. People cannot be expected to be consistent; rather, it is to be expected that their texts and talk vary as they draw on different discourses in different contexts. Thus the analysis also places emphasis on the content of discourse in social interacJon as something important in itself, not just a reflecJon of underlying

psychological processes. This perspecJve...combines a poststructuralist focus on the ways in which specific discourses (conceived as ‘interpretaJve repertoires’) consJtute subjects and objects with an interacJonist focus on the ways in which people’s discourse is oriented towards social acJon in specific contexts.”

(Jorgenson and Phillips, 2002; 107)

It is important to note the variability inherent within interpretaJve repertoires across different seungs and contexts, “parJcipants will owen draw on a number of different repertoires, fliung between them as they construct the sense of a parJcular phenomenon or as they perform different acJons” (Poper, 1996b).

Gilbert and Mulkay’s (1984) research was one of the most influenJal studies that addressed interpretaJve repertoires within scienJsts’ discourse - they isolated commonaliJes (wording and phrasing) from the discourse generated by the researchers they were invesJgaJng. The

importance of this methodological approach, idenJfying such repertoires “allows researchers to beper understand the culture and ideology shared in certain communiJes” (Hsu and Roth, 2012:

1444). A recent example being Sampson and Atkinson’s (2011, 2013) extension of Gilbert and Mulkay’s research - looking into the emoJonal repertoires uJlised by scienJsts during scienJfic discovery. (Please note Gilbert and Mulkay’s work will be discussed in more depth in the following sub-secJon.)

Poper and Reicher’s (1987) discourse analysis of the Bristol riots is another example of the use of using interpretaJve repertoires as a methodological focus. This analyJcal priority avoided

apempJng to discern what actually happened in the event and instead looked at the construcJve and consJtuJve paperns of discourse sourced from newspaper arJcles, television reports and interviews. Through this form of analysis the researchers were able to discover disJnct forms of descripJve commonaliJes used by groups; one example being the ‘community repertoire’ - a common repertoire of phrases and metaphors used to construct close social Jes, agency and proximity (Poper and Reicher, 1987).

The use of repertoires has been used extensively across the discourse analysis literature beyond the examples cited above. For example, Lawes’ (1999) examinaJon of the discursive strategies uJlised when construcJng representaJons of marriage - the “romanJc” and “realist” repertoires were idenJfied - demonstraJng that “marriage as a discursive object is highly changeable, even in constant flux...discursive construcJons of ‘marriage’ can be varied and even contradictory ” (1999:

18). Roth and Lucas (1997) in their study of students’ claims about scienJfic knowledge proposed nine repertoires (historical, representaJonal, raJonal, religious, intuiJve, cultural, perceptual, authoritaJve and empiricist). Reis and Roth (2007) idenJfied five interpretaJve repertoires relaJng to environmental educators and their narraJves relaJng to curriculum design (experJse, empiricism, relevance, knowledge transferability/ translatability and emoJonality) (also Crawford, 2005). Horton-Salway (2011) proposed two repertoires to define the language used to describe ADHD (biological and psycho-social).

The next secJon will provide an overview of Gilbert and Mulkay’s (1984) research - a study which informs the core approach of this thesis.