Discourse Analysis: weeks 2&3 | Anna Boase

What are the particular difficulties that researchers face when there are no step by step procedures to follow, yet there is a requirement for a systematic analysis of a dataset?

Discourse analysis, as defined by Tonkiss (2004), is a method of analysis characterized by its preoccupation with the production of meaning through texts and speech (478). She further explains how discourse analysts are interested in the way language is used to shapesocial meaning and knowledge, rather than simply to act as a form of communication (478). Therefore, discourse analysis provides a suitable framework through which researchers can begin their work, a framework in which language guides the direction of the research. Without a clear framework, or a step by step procedure to follow, researchers can face a number of difficulties. Each of these difficulties originates from a lack of direction. In order to produce an unbiased, balanced analysis of a dataset, researchers must have a clear focus throughout. Without a step by step procedure, such a focus could be hard to maintain and the researcher may end up with gaps in their research. In addition, a lack of structure in their preparation can lead to wasted time and effort, not necessarily just that of the researcher. A clear framework may be provided by establishing the methods and methodology which will be utilized to deliver an efficient analysis, while a fixed set of research questions would guide the research and provide a focus for the analysis. Failure in this limits and undermines the research and its benefits to the reader.

A lack of rules and fixed methods makes it difficult to formalise a standard approach to discourse analysis (Tonkiss, 2004: 481), therefore discourse analysts may face some of the difficulties outlined above. To combat these difficulties, Tonkiss (2004) constructs her own orderly research process, drawing upon particular forms of textual analysis and language to both explain discourse analysis more generally and demonstrate how discourse can be analysed. She frames her process as follows: defining the research problem, collecting the data, coding and analysing the data, presenting the analysis (478). Elements of Tonkiss’ research process can be identified in the work of Philo, Briant and Donald (2013), who explore Asylum-related issues and how they have been presented by the British press, using discourse as the focus of their analysis. They firstly define their data thus in the form of ‘Case Studies of Media Content, 2011’ (87). Next, they collect the data they wish to analyse and clarify their selections in two lists – one for TV news sources and the other for newspapers – preceding the analysis (87-94). Then they analyse the data, considering voice, characterisation and argument. For instance, an analysis of BBC1 Lunchtime News considers the conflation of terms such as ‘immigration’ and ‘asylum’ and the social hostility generated by a lack of clarification (98). Finally, they present their analysis in the form of a case study. Thus, the framework exercised by Philo et al. (2013), much like that of Tonkiss (2004), enables them to present their data and its analysis in an organised manner for the benefit of the research and its readers.

References:

Philo, Greg, Emma Briant, and Pauline Donald. 2013. “Case Studies of Media Content, 2011.” In Bad News for Refugees, 87–130. London: Pluto Press.