CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
METHOD
Assumptions:
1. Critical discourse analysis is based on the idea that we produce meaning and thus social relations,
through language.
2. The reproduction of power relations (who has the right to define who speaks, has certain rights, and
how meaning is defined) occurs through language and the exercise of indirect or direct systems of
control and regulation.
3. The analysis of ‘text’ within a historically situated perspective can give us insights into how social
realities are reproduced, contested and changed.
Discourse definition
‘A system of statements which construct an ‘object’’ (Parker, 1992). Not merely a label or language, but
a system which produce something that does not exist before. For example:
a. Pathology or ‘madness’
b. Racist identities
c. Gender roles
CHARACTERISTICS OF DISCOURSES:
Discourses...
1. Can be found in texts
2. Are about objects
3. Contain subjects
4. Are a coherent system of meanings.
5. Refer to other discourses.
6. Reflects on its own way of speaking.
7. Are historically located.
8. Support institutions
9. Reproduce power relations
10. Have ideological effects.
How to do critical discourse analysis?
METHOD:
1. Gather word for word narratives about the way different ‘actors’ see the same social situation
(Record all interviews).
2. Transcribe these texts and read them in a group (ideally) as you would read a fiction piece about
a world you are not familiar with.
a. Transcription can be very long and not always practical. The second best is to listen to
the recording you have and pick out the parts which seem most interesting and
relevant. Obviously these will very group to group, what you are looking for are
moments in the dialogue that capture the dynamics you’re interested in. Look for
statements that are particularly strong, contradictory, and illustrates a dynamic you
wish to highlight.
3. Meet with your group and identify:
a. What objects are being defined and how.
b. What subjects are being defined and how.
c. What is being assumed about how different ‘actors’ should or should not act?
d. Speculate about who has the right to say what and the opposite: what is not being said
or allowed to be said.
e. How do these discourses relate to other discourses? Do they describe the same ‘object’
in a different set of meanings?
f.
Does the way of speaking refer to itself in any particular way?
g. How has this way of speaking emerged historically?
h. Does this way of speaking define certain things as ‘always existing’?
i.
Which institutions are supported or not in this way so speaking?
j.
Who stands to lose or gain by this way of speaking?
k. What types of power relations are reproduced or subverted in this way of speaking?
4. After you answer these questions identify 3-5 themes that you think are particularly
interesting. Try to go beyond confirming the obvious and select themes which illustrate the dynamics
you thought were most interesting.
5. In your RESULTS section write up these themes in a series of sections explaining what the
theme is and then using verbatim transcribed examples to illustrate these points.
6. In your DISCUSSION section you can then refer back to the themes and describe what the
relevance is and implications of what your themes were with the original questions and literature you
gathered.
Parker, I. (1992) Discourse Dynamics: Critical Analysis for Social and Individual Psychology. London:
Routledge.