[FIELDS] Howwitt Social Constructionist Discourse Analysis

preamble

1. phenomenon of discourses 

• concept at which specific theories revolve around 

• distinct field of psychology

• change the way you see the world 

• specific in what kind of data it seeks 

2. it is relatively advanced in what it demands from the researcher.

• A more niche pool of topics

• A different (more radical) understanding of the social world

• Less tolerant of regular qualitative research data

• Less concrete instructions and guidelines on the steps of the analysis

3. Discourse Analysis is a wide field of study with many overlaps

social constructionist discourse analysis

• discursive psychology

• Micro-level analysis; sticks mostly to natural conversations

  • people talking to each other 

• Focuses on how people use words as actions to reach goals; more agentic

main assumptions

1. thought and understanding is better examined through talk and text to show its intrinsically social aspects.

• specific kind of behavior: people talking

• can’t study the internal world

2. There is no psychological phenomenon outside of discourse. All these are actively constructed within social interaction.

3. We interact purposefully; We do things with words.

• affect each other purposefully

• e.g. manipulation -> just how it psychologically works for them 

4. The social interaction is the arena to attain that purpose; discourses are purposeful actions, drawn from interpretative repertoires

• carry out certain goals in arena

speech act theory

• All words perform social acts

divisions

1. locution

2. illocution

3. perlocution

4. social force

locution

Simply speaking. Phonetics, etc.

illocution

• What is intended to be done by these words.

  • seen as threats

  • intentions are different for outcomes

perlocution

•  The actual effects of these words.

social force

•  Eventually, illocution and perlocution were combined as inseparable pairs under this term, with the addition of meaning

discourse

• Language as meaningful actions within context; an action orientation view of language

  • what is done with words within a specific context

• As Interpretative Repertoires: broad clusters of language, whether in phrases, terms, labels, and other features grouped around a set of metaphors that are assumed to be widely, generally, and similarly understood by those within an interaction

  • repository of all the available discourses that you have

  • assume it's understood by the majority

more specific features of discourse

1. construction

2. discursive practices

3. discursive genres

4. situation

5. register

6. rhetoric

[specific] construction

• Discourses construct version of reality in interaction

• Meaning: co-constructed within an interaction (via discourses)

  • creates versions of reality right in that interaction

[specific] discursive practices

• What is happening in language which achieves particular outcomes

[specific] discursive genres

•  Types of languages and their commonly held associations; seen in cues and repertoires used.

  • e.g. defense vs. talking to friend

[specific] situation

• Situation: Institutionally, sequentially, rhetorically

  • sequence: who talks first

  • rhetorics: how are people talking

[specific] register

• The style of the language used in relation to

[specific] rhetoric

• Rhetoric: Analysts evaluate the persuasiveness of discourse

  • how effective it is 

with regards to those in interaction

1. dialogical

2. footing

3. stake and accountability

4. face

5. relationships

in bold: the range of available topics that you narrow down your research into

[regards] dialogical

• We incorporate previous conversations

[regards] footing

• Footing: How the person talks in relation what they are saying.

  • status of the people

[regards] stake and accountability

•  Vested interests of others that are wielded in discourse.

[regards] face

•  Strategies are used to protect statuses of participants

[regards] relationships

• The relationship between those talking are always figured and used in discourse.

  • negotiated inside of the discussion 

when do we use DA?

• The topics of DA fall within the concepts just discussed.

• are of interest to you -> want to analyze those things in that specific way

• limited but everything we do has an aspect of interaction to it 

• Generally, when you want to Ξnd out how language works in social interactions to do things

  • Is 50/50 focused on what the constructions are and how they are constructed.

  • Looks into more goal-oriented aspects that people have in interactions.

sample research questions

1. How do (participants) who (characteristics) construct (phenomenon)?

• how do people interact

2. What are the discursive repertoires that participants use when constructing (phenomenon) ?

• interpretive repositories 

• what techniques in interaction when talking about phenomenon 

3. How do (participants) use discourses to (goal)?

• doing it in real time

1. Example: How do students use discourses to justify their dislike of online classes?

2. Example: How do teachers use discourses to minimize the beneΞts of onsite classes?

conducting DA

1. gathering materials for analysis

2. recording and transcription

3. generating hypothesis

4. coding

5. analysis

6. validating the analysis

step 1: gathering materials for analysis

• DA primarily uses natural, daily conversations as their source of analysis.

•  Basically, conversations not initiated in by researchers

• Interviews and FGDs are discouraged but tolerated; no active campaigning against it by the proponents of DA.

  • Interviews and FGDs need the moderator to make the environment as conversational as possible.

  • rely on FGDs that are done in a specific way

  • less antural

  • better to have no facilitator = natural -> give a quesiton then we’ll talk about 

  • discouraged but tolerated -> bec. difficult to find data

step 2: recording and transcription

• Audio recording

• Jefferson Transcription: A means of transcription that utilizes symbolic marks to highlight the specific details of the non-verbal aspects of conversation

• looking at intonations

step 3: generating hypothesis

• create ideas about what you think is happening in the social interaction

• Not in a postpositivist sense.

• Create basic ideas by the researcher in what is happening in the social interactions.

  • Realigning their initial research questions

  • Deciding which topics to address

  • Which issues to focus on given their data

• Some ways to do this step include:

  • Making notes while listening to the data

  • Talking to fellow researchers informally

  • Formally setting a research meeting to talk about specific segments of the data

step4: coding

• Coding here is not the same as in the other approaches.

• Coding for DA:

  • Reading through the transcript

  • Sectioning segments of the transcript

  • Grouping similar segments together in terms of a commonality intuitively noted by the analyst

• reorder the transcript -> segments, and group it

• its similar if you interpret it as such 

step 5: the analysis

• Be familiar with all the concepts of DA discussed, as these are the

• anchor points of your actual analysis.

• Analysis has inductive and deductive aspects:

  • Inductive: generate ideas that answer your RQs using the transcript

  • Deductive: Test the extent to which the ideas hold in relation to the rest of the transcripts

• interpret and analyze it 

• cataloging it 

[S5] three questions

1. What are the functional and constructive aspects of the text?

2. What is the action orientation of the accounts?

3. What are the possible interpretative repertoires?

[S5] 4 areas of analysis to check

1. Search for patterns of conversation.

2. Consider the soundness of the idea in relation to turn-taking (what happened before and after a specific line in the conversation)

3. Check how the idea changes with regards to deviant cases

4. Check how the idea changes in other materials (ex. Different conversations of the similar kind)

• goal: find support for ideas that answer research questions

• show some interesting variations of ideas

step 5: validating the analysis

• Check the analysis against:

  • Participants’ orientations: How your interpretation is supported by the next turn of speech.

  • Deviant cases.

  • Coherence to similar studies. New findings need further justiΞcation.

  • Readers evaluations.

common mistakes that lead to under-analysis

1. underanalysis due to summary

2. due to taking sides

3. due to over-quotation or isolated quotation

4. due to circular discovery

5. due to survey

6. due to spotting

[mistakes] due to summary

1. Under-analysis due to summary: A lack of detail.

• enough details

[mistakes] due to taking sides

1. Under-analysis due to taking sides.

• make yourself aware if you're taking anyone's side

• if supporting other people/bias

• suppose to analyze everyone - assume good and bad aspects

[mistakes] due to overquotation or isolated quotation

1. Under-analysis due to over-quotation. or isolated quotation: Not explaining quotes used.

• your voice rather than just using pieces of conversation 

[mistakes] due to circular discovery

1. Analysis failure due to the circular discovery: Using discourses as explanations and reasons.

• discourses: analytical tools and not evidences 

• conversation: evidences using the discourses

• don;t use evidence

• lens that you are explaining the specific cases

[mistakes] due to survey

1. Under-analysis due to survey: assuming that a type of discourse is used by all participants (similarly).

• look for minimal variations 

[mistakes] due to spotting

1. Under-analysis due to spotting: Merely identifying examples of concepts