Esther Walker 35295120
Discourse analysis is the process through which language in texts are studied, giving insights into ‘the way speech and texts help to shape and reproduce social meanings and forms of knowledge’ (Tonkiss, 2004:478). The way language constructs social meanings is the primary focus of discourse analysists, who study this underlying domain of language where ‘people’s knowledge of the social world is actively shaped’ (Tonkiss, 2004:478).
As discourse analysis tends to be ‘data-driven’ (2004:481), there is difficultly in defining a specific ‘method’. One of the key difficulties of having no step by step procedure then, is the inability to approach the method with a uniform manner. What’s more, since discourse analysis is employed by different disciplines, it thus becomes learnt through practice. To overcome this difficulty, researchers often divide processes of data collection and analysis into four sections; identifying key themes and arguments, looking for association and variation, examining characterisation and agency, and paying attention to emphasis and silences (2004:486). However, there are some issues with this approach to discourse analysis as a whole. When the researcher is analysing ideological discourse, they must subjectively identify it as so. Tonkiss suggests that researchers in this predicament should always state their reasoning for choosing a piece of data from the discourse, their strategy for collecting it (like relevant time periods), and their understanding of how the data represents both the research objectives, and the social context in which it is set and extracted from (2004:485). This allows the researcher to understand their positionality, and be actively reflexive.
In the example of Philo, Briant & Donald’s (2013) study on news media discourses of asylum seekers in the UK, they conducted an in-depth discourse analysis of news stories surrounding the issue in June 2011. Their discourse analysis found several different themes within the news topic of asylum seekers, and were presented as such in their paper. This approach highlighted how their analytic procedure allowed them to recognise these themes and their importance to the issue. They found, overwhelmingly, that within news media ‘there is little appetite… as a whole for stories that promote the cause for asylum seekers’ (2013:130).
In addition, since media texts represent the powerful ways in which discourse can shape attitudes and establish dominant meanings, as well as the enormity of their scope, the researcher faced procedural challenges in choosing the relevant material. In their case, they narrowed their selection down to one week beginning 2nd June 2011, correlating with the government’s clearance of a ‘backlog’ of asylum seeker cases which dated back to 2006. This meant data collection was performed on key dates within the discourse, as taking samples from news media from 2006 onwards would be extremely challenging in terms of relevance, scope and workload.
In sum, the difficulties presented with discourse analysis having no set analytic procedures, can be overcome by researchers following a strict analytic design that allows them to identify important voices, silences and contributions to the discourse in a precise and effective manner.
References
Tonkiss, F. (2004) ‘Discourse Analysis’ In Clive Seale (eds) Researching Society and Culture. Pp. 405-423. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Philo, G., Briant, E. & Donald, P. (2013) ‘Case Studies of Media Content, 2011’ In Bad News for Refugees. Pp. 87-130. London: Pluto Press.
MCS group 2 