Throughout Camera Lucida, Roland Barthes employs visual analysis in a deeply personal and novelistic style as he engages with the art of photography, exploring how visual images communicate messages to the viewer. Inserting himself into the text and usurping theory for intimacy, Barthes explores the essence and nature of photography while simultaneously constructing a eulogy, of sorts, for his late mother. Using his own emotions as an insight, Barthes constructs his analysis of photography by attempting to rediscover his late mother in a series of photographs. He does not want to simply recognise her within an image, rather he wishes to find her, to discover her essence. Barthes (1993) finds her in the Winter Garden Photograph, where the being he has loved “is not separated from itself: at last it coincides” (109). Thus his research into the nature of photography is presented as a process rather than a final product. Barthes (1993) presents a structure for the visual analysis of still images: identifying the studium and the punctum (26). The studium, Barthes (1993) explains, is the cultural, linguistic or political interpretation of an image, either simply received or enjoyed (26). The punctum, however, is the personal and poignant element of the image which disturbs the studium (27). Barthes (1993) exemplifies this structure through an analysis of Alexander Gardner’s 1865 ‘Portrait of Lewis Payne’ and explains that the studium is that the boy is handsome, while the punctum is the knowledge that he is going to die (96).

Barthes (1993) highlights what can be perceived as a difference between visual analysis and discourse analysis as he claims that “no writing can give me this certainty” (85). In essence, Barthes believes that no discourse could provide him with the same clarity that an image can. There is an element of undeniability when the researcher is faced with a visual depiction of an object, person or event – an element which can be questioned when it is presented through discourse. Barthes (1993) argues that the photograph is “never distinguished from its referent” (5). In effect, he is denying an explicit need for semiotics, presenting the photograph as a literal image of its referent. The photo ‘stands for’ exactly what is visible in the frame. When addressing other forms of visual material like a painting, for example, the same clarity outlined by Barthes may not be as easily accessible and a different approach to visual analysis may be necessary. A photograph is a depiction of what is truly there at the time it is taken, it is a “certificate of presence” (Barthes, 1993: 87). Although it is not black and white, a painting or a piece of discourse relies more upon the interpretation of the painter or the writer than the photograph relies upon the interpretation of the photographer, especially for a candid shot.

References:

Barthes, R. (1993) Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. London: Vintage.

According to Fran, discourse could be a single speech or speech act, or a systematic ordering of languages involving certain rules, terms, and conventions. Therefore, discourse should be a concept, and it cannot be understood as the way of its literally meaning. For us researches, we need to understand “discourse” in different situation specifically.

The theory here is based on Foucault’s Discourse system. First, let’s imagine it as a multi-dimensional structure (system), because discourse is definitely not a single definition, it is composed of many elements. In the simplest terms, discourse has Power and Knowledge. Power, Knowledge are the elements of discourse, when you apply the concept of discourse to different topics, fields, and scopes. Its elements also change depending on the theme it is in. For our question, what you want to know is Media Discourse.

In his work “The Incitement to Discourse” (Foucault, M., 2006), Foucault uses the sexual discourse power of Europe in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries to analyze. “Power” educates the public, encourages people to talk about sex openly, healthily, and what kind of results the sexual education of the public (adults and children at school) has produced (the result is a positive change of society).

After we understand the theory of Discourse mentioned above, then we will slowly understand the relationship between representation, ideology and discourse in media.

We associate our perspectives with Discourse, Power and Knowledge. Discourse theme is Media Discourse, Representation and Ideology are elements of Media Discourse, and Representation and Ideology are Knowledge in Discourse. It is mentioned here that the medium of Knowledge can be very diverse, not just limited to what we understand about knowledge is “books” or “theories.” Knowledge can be presented in different formats / media.

According to knowledge so far, compared with basic research methods, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has provided a key dimension to discourse research and has been criticized since the advent of criticism. On criticism and some controversial issues, we can not only find the root cause of criticism of CDA, but also better understand the changes and trends of discourse analysis.

The interpretation of CDA will inevitably have its preferences, but the true value of CDA is not to provide us with the only correct interpretation, but to open up another possibility of textual interpretation, thus revealing that the discourse may imply Value systems and ideological meanings that have been “naturalized”. Obviously, such an interpretation has important social and political significance.

For the question in class:

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

In conducting discourse analysis, researchers may face some challenges because there is no clear “standard rule” for such analysis. Tonkiss (2004) outlines four main phases. Define research, collect data, code and analyze, and provide analysis results. When defining a study, researchers may face stumbling blocks in the initial stages, as it is difficult to accurately ask research questions before collecting data and preliminary analysis. However, the way to remedy this problem is to construct the discourse at the beginning of the “problematic” analysis. As the process progresses, this will help improve research issues.

Because there will be many sources of data collection, the process of selecting and processing the data may lead to “data overload”. In order to narrow down the selection, although text data is preferred in this case, research questions on the correlation between materials and data are preferred. In addition to focusing on different types of discourse, the question that researchers need to ask is “What is the basis for selecting certain types of data?” Another common research strategy involves distinguishing the source of textual material. For example, when selecting textual material from a newspaper, you can choose a range of discourses from more “serious” and “broad” media or “tabloid” media. This can also apply to free or conservative newspapers.

When managing large amounts of data, identifying major topics and keywords can help bring a more systematic order to the analysis process. Another aspect that analysts can consider is by finding associations and patterns of change in text. By grouping associations and separating variations, you can make the characters in the text “talk” to each other. Because these “roles” are in the text, their roles are also highlighted. The level of agency that each social role plays depends on the role depicted-whether they are active or passive in the problem described. It is also important to emphasise emphasis and remain silent when analysing text by explaining gaps (in other words, ignored voices).

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

Wanlu Jiang

A discourse is a group of statements which provide a language for talking about- i.e. a way of representing – a particular kind of knowledge about a topic (Hall in Tonkiss, 2004:406). What Philo, Briant and Donald (2013) did is use discourse to analysis their issue of asylum. They used lots of statements from various TV coverages, broadcasts and programs to show different opinions of asylum related issues. As Tonkiss (2004) said, it is difficult to formalize any standard approach to discourse analysis. This is partly because of the variety of frameworks adopted by different researchers, partly because the process tends to be ‘data-driven’ (Tonkiss, 2004:408-409). However, she still considered some of these in terms of four key stages of the research process: defining the research problem; selecting and approaching data; sorting, coding and analysing data; and presenting the analysis. From looking at these four stages, how to define what is the research about is the first difficulty the researchers would face. Then researchers may be confused about what data they should choose after they know the key point of their research. A discourse analysis needs a wide range of data and the data should be related to the problem in the research, not just simple the number of texts analyzed. Philo, Briant and Donald (2013) used both qualitative and quantitative data in their article so that it would be clear enough to show the result of the research. How to analysis the data could be another difficulty. As a tool, data should be used to support the research that could make the research be convincing. So which part of data and which angle of analyzing could be very important in the discourse analysis. Furthermore, being critical and objective could be a challenge for the researchers. Sometimes the preconceptions may influence the researchers’ position so that the research would become excursive. At last, as Tonkiss (2004) said, discourse analysis does not sit easily with hard-and -fast rules of method (Tonkiss, 2004:418). Researchers should use the appropriate data and method to do the analysis.

Reference list

Tonkiss, Fran. 2004. “Discourse Analysis.” In Researching Society and Culture, ed by. Clive Seale, 405–423. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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

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.