Discourse Analysis Means Doing Analysis: A Critique Of Six Analytic Shortcomings

Abstract

Este trabajo identifica 6 estrategias comúnmente empleadas de análisis conversacionales o de datos textuales, que resultan insuficientes para calificar como análisis del discurso. Estas son: (1) pseudo-análisis a través de los resúmenes; (2) pseudo-análisis basado en la toma de posiciones; (3) pseudo-análisis por exceso o aislamiento de citas; (4) pseudo-análisis circular de discursos y constructos mentales; (5) pseudo-análisis por falsa generalización; (6) pseudoanálisis por localización de elementos. Con caracterizar estos atajos analíticos esperamos contribuir con futuros desarrollos más rigurosos de análisis del discurso en la psicología social. A number of ways of treating talk and textual data are identified which fall short of discourse analysis. They are: (1) under-analysis through summary; (2) underanalysis through taking sides; (3) under-analysis through over-quotation or through isolated quotation; (4) the circular identification of discourses and mental constructs; (5) false survey; and (6) analysis that consists in simply spotting features. We show, by applying each of these to an extract from a recorded interview, that none of them actually analyse the data. We hope that illustrating shortcomings in this way will encourage further development of rigorous discourse analysis in social psychology.

Discourse Analysis and its Utility for Urban Policy Research

“…Notably those associated with the 'Discourse and Rhetoric Group' in the Department of Social Sciences at Loughborough University in the UK (e.g. Billig, 1995;Potter, 1996Potter, , 2003Edwards, 1997;Antaki et al, 2002) alongside the work of Wetherell et al (2001). Discursive psychology focuses on the actor's interpretations and how these are produced in discourse.…”

“…Yet, the proliferation of discourse analysis in urban policy research has also been accompanied by a cacophony of criticism from the policy community and some academics who view much of the discourse-based research corpus as unsystematic and adding little to the evidence base (e.g. Parker & Burman, 1993;Antaki et al, 2002). This disjuncture, between the increasing output of research informed by discourse analysis and its hostile reception from some quarters, is a good reason to take stock and evaluate its utility.…”

‘Doing designing’: On the practical analysis of design in practice

“…There are characteristics that mark analyses of this kind as distinct from other accounts of practice: in their attention to ordered, situated sequential actions. Ethnomethodological approaches explore the distinctiveness or 'just-thisness' of particular situations and notably this involves doing analysis (Goodwin and Heritage 1990;Psathas 1995;Antaki, Billig et al 2003). An account of this 'distinctiveness' however is not a 'natural history', ideographic, nor a descriptive constructive account of design work (see Antaki, Billig et al 2003;Ingold 2011).…”

“…Topics of interest in philosophy, psychology, computing, and indeed design, from an EM/CA sensibility are approached without assuming some privileged access to 'what is going on' in a speaker's mind-brain (Antaki, Billig et al 2003), nor a cognitive-interpretative order of patterned actions because of shared internalized frames of reference and value systems (Maynard and Clayman 1991). The 'location' of cognition is contested (Coulter 1990;Coulter 1991) and an approach to interaction and language is adopted that is developmentally and analytically prior to thinking to yourself 'inside your head'.…”

Male and female murderers in newspapers: Are they portrayed differently?

“…Thematic analysis was relevant for this research because it is a systematic and transparent form of qualitative method owing to the prevalence of themes, and it still allows for a deep analysis (Joff, 2012). Conversely, thematic analysis can only rely on the outcomes it generates and has a lack of control; in other words, 'anything goes' (Antaki, Billig, Edwards, & Potter, 2002;Silverman, 1993). Boyatzis (1998) also states that it is subjective in terms of the researcher's interpretations.…”