Discourse Analysis

It is difficult to give a single definition of Critical or Discourse Analysis as a research method. Indeed, rather
than providing a particular method, Discourse Analysis can be characterized as a way of approaching and
thinking about a problem. In this sense, Discourse Analysis is neither a qualitative nor a quantitative research
method, but a manner of questioning the basic assumptions of quantitative and qualitative research
methods. Discourse Analysis does not provide a tangible answer to problems based on scientific research, but it
enables access to the ontological and epistemological assumptions behind a project, a statement, a method of
research, or - to provide an example from the field of Library and Information Science - a system of
classification. In other words, Discourse Analysis will enable to reveal the hidden motivations behind a text or
behind the choice of a particular method of research to interpret that text. Expressed in today's more trendy
vocabulary, Critical or Discourse Analysis is nothing more than a deconstructive reading and interpretation of a
problem or text (while keeping in mind that postmodern theories conceive of every interpretation of reality
and, therefore, of reality itself as a text. Every text is conditioned and inscribes itself within a given discourse,
thus the term Discourse Analysis). Discourse Analysis will, thus, not provide absolute answers to a specific
problem, but enable us to understand the conditions behind a specific "problem" and make us realize that the
essence of that "problem", and its resolution, lie in its assumptions; the very assumptions that enable the
existence of that "problem". By enabling us to make these assumptions explicit, Discourse Analysis aims at
allowing us to view the "problem" from a higher stance and to gain a comprehensive view of the "problem"
and ourselves in relation to that "problem". Discourse Analysis is meant to provide a higher awareness of the
hidden motivations in others and ourselves and, therefore, enable us to solve concrete problems - not by
providing unequivocal answers, but by making us ask ontological and epistemological questions.
Though critical thinking about and analysis of situations/texts is as ancient as mankind or philosophy itself, and
no method or theory as such, Discourse Analysis is generally perceived as the product of the postmodern
period. The reason for this is that while other periods or philosophies are generally characterized by a beliefsystem or meaningful interpretation of the world, postmodern theories do not provide a particular view of the
world, other that there is no one true view or interpretation of the world. In other words, the postmodern
period is distinguished from other periods (Renaissance, Enlightenment, Modernism, etc.) in the belief that
there is no meaning, that the world is inherently fragmented and heterogeneous, and that any sense making
system or belief is mere subjective interpretation - and an interpretation that is conditioned by its social
surrounding and the dominant discourse of its time. Postmodern theories, therefore, offer numerous readings
aiming at "deconstructing" concepts, belief-systems, or generally held social values and assumptions. Some of
the most commonly used theories are those of Jacques Derrida (who coined the term "deconstruction"),
Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, Jean-Franois Lyotard, and Fredric Jameson (this extremely brief listing of a few
critical thinkers is neither comprehensive nor reflecting a value judgment; these are merely some of the most
common names encountered when studying postmodern theories).
Critical thinking, however, is older than postmodern thought, as the following quote by John Dewey
illustrates. Dewey defined the nature of reflective thought as "active, persistent, and careful consideration of
any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusion
to which it tends" (Dewey, J. Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan, 1933. Page 9). When critically
evaluating a research project or text, one should, therefore, not limit oneself to postmodern theories.

Uses of Discourse Analysis

The contribution of the postmodern Discourse Analysis is the application of critical thought to social situations
and the unveiling of hidden (or not so hidden) politics within the socially dominant as well as all other
discourses (interpretations of the world, belief systems, etc.). Discourse Analysis can be applied to any text,
that is, to any problem or situation. Since Discourse Analysis is basically an interpretative and deconstructing
reading, there are no specific guidelines to follow. One could, however, make use of the theories of Jacques
Derrida, Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, or Fredric Jameson, as well as of other critical and postmodern
thinkers.

Again, the purpose of Discourse Analysis is not to provide definite answers, but to expand our personal
horizons and make us realize our own shortcomings and unacknowledged agendas/motivations - as well as that
of others. In short, critical analysis reveals what is going on behind our backs and those of others and which
determines our actions.
For example, Discourse Analysis applied to the theory of Library Science, would not argue for or against the
validity and "truth" of a certain research method (qualitative or quantitative), statement, or value (i.e. the
Library Bill of Rights, or policies concerning free speech). Rather, discourse analysis would focus on the
existence and message of these texts and locate them within a historical and social context (see Bernd
Frohmann's article "The Power of Images: A Discourse Analysis of the Cognitive Viewpoint" below). In this
manner, Discourse Analysis aims at revealing the motivation and politics involved in the arguing for or against a
specific research method, statement, or value. The concrete result will be the awareness to the qualities and
shortcomings of each and the inception of an informed debate. Though this debate will never be settled, it
allows for the correction of bias and the inclusion of minorities within the debate and analyzed discourse.

Types of Discourse Analysis

There are numerous "types" or theories of Discourse Analysis. Jacques Derrida's "Deconstruction" would be
one; so would Michel Foucault's Genealogy and social criticism and analysis of the uses of discourse to exercise
power (such as his analysis of how "Knowledge" is created in our societies and with what purpose or
effect); Fredric Jameson's Marxist analysis of Postmodernism itself would provide another interesting reading
on the dominant discourse of our time; as would Julia Kristeva's or Hlne Cixous' Feminist interpretations of
current social practices. Numerous other theories or "readings" exist and the bibliography and list of links will
provide further information to allow you to choose the most relevant or appealing to you. The bibliography of
preparatory reading to the Module "Critical Theories" of the University of Wales Swansea might also be helpful.

Issues of Reliability and Validity

Discourse or Critical Analysis always remains a matter of interpretation. As there is no hard data provided
through discourse analysis, the reliability and the validity of one's research/findings depends on the force and
logic of one's arguments. Even the best constructed arguments are subject to their own deconstructive reading
and counter-interpretations. The validity of critical analysis is, therefore, dependent on the quality of the
rhetoric. Despite this fact, well-founded arguments remain authoritative over time and have concrete
applications.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Discourse Analysis and critical thinking is applicable to every situation and every subject. The new perspective
provided by discourse analysis allows personal growth and a high level of creative fulfillment. No technology or
funds are necessary and authoritative discourse analysis can lead to fundamental changes in the practices of an
institution, the profession, and society as a whole. However, Discourse Analysis does not provide definite
answers; it is not a "hard" science, but an insight/knowledge based on continuous debate and argumentation.

Source: The University of Texas at Austin School of Information, homepage:

http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/discourse.htm (last access 08/09/2011)