5.2 Research Design
5.2.3 Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis is a postmodern analytic tool that functions to explore how individuals and groups create meaning through the language they use and are exposed to (Schiffrin, 1987). A variety of approaches to discourse analysis exist which serve to fulfil various aims. For the purpose of this research three different types of discourse analyses outlined by Hodges, Kuper and Reeves (2008) will be considered here, as the variation between each type is distinct, easily distinguishable and provides an overview of the broader field of discourse analysis. From this overview an appreciation for why Parker’s (2005) approach to discourse analytic reading was used in this research comes to the fore. For Hodges, Kuper and Reeves (2008) the first cluster of discourse analysis is formal linguistic discourse analysis. This style of discourse analysis is used in the field of sociolinguistics, whereby the analysis focuses on the “linguistic, grammatical, and semantic uses and meanings of text” (Hodges et al., 2008, p. 571). This form of analysis applies a structural analysis of the text and is thus more descriptive and less critical (Hodges, Kuper & Reeves, 2008).
Second, empirical discourse analysis, which is also somewhat descriptive with a move towards a more applied and critical function of discourse analysis considers how language is influential in constructing social practices through interaction (Hodges et al., 2008). This orientation to discourse analysis is also referred to as conversation analysis and studies how individuals may use and apply language (Hodges et al., 2008).
Third, critical discourse analysis focuses on a macro level and takes into account “how discourses (in many forms) construct what is possible for individuals and institutions to think and to say” (Hodges et al., 2008, p. 571). From this understanding critical discourse analysis is less descriptive and more applied. Critical discourse analysis is influenced strongly by Foucault who emphasised that “discourse is about the production of knowledge through language” (Hall, 1992, p. 291). This approach to discourse analysis explores social practices critically and considers the influence of constructs, such as power or inequality in social relationships. By taking this into consideration, this orientation presented itself as the most appropriate approach for the purpose of this research, because this research study was guided by the assumption that people use discourse to construct their social worlds and thereby their subjective realities (Shefer, 2004). The discourse analysists role is to uncover how participants represent these subjective realities (Fairclough, 2007).
Parker’s (2004) approach to discourse analytic reading is one of a variety of approaches to analysing discourse and was selected for the purpose of this research due to the comprehensive nature of the steps that are followed to identify the discourses within the text as well as the critical approach that is used to analyse the data. Parker (2004), in his approach to discourse analysis, suggests that “discourse analysts study the way texts are constructed, the functions they serve in different contexts and the contradictions
that run through them” (p. 308). It is from this understanding that discourse analysis was used to understand the social realities of the participants through the analysis of texts, because this form of analysis allows for personal experiences and their situation in social contexts to be uncovered (Flick, von Kardorff & Steinke, 2004). According to Parker (2004) language serves functions and is influenced by ideology, which is evident in this research. For the purpose of this study the focus was to uncover the system- justifying functions of talk and how the discourses that the participants use encourage the subordination of women and prevent social change in terms of gender equality (Parker, 2005).
Jørgensen and Phillips (2002) maintain that within discourse analysis the researcher is able to “investigate and analyse power relations in society and to formulate normative perspectives from which a critique of such relations can be made with an eye on the possibilities for social change” (p. 2). Within the framework of this research design participants were interviewed using in-depth interviews to gather the data transcripts that were then analysed through Parker’s (1994) steps to discourse-analytic reading.
The transcripts provided the texts that are intended to represent specific discourses.
The data analysis section of this chapter (5.6 Data Analysis) illustrates how the 12 steps to discourse-analytic reading were applied to analyse the interviews (Parker, 2005). A brief example of each of these steps is given with reference to interview 1. Discourse analysis “is the act of showing how certain discourses are deployed to achieve particular effects in specific contexts” (Terre Blanche et al., 2006, p. 328). Therefore, discourse analysis enables an understanding of how participants reflect on and construct their realities (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). The participants’ discourses will be limited to the discourses that are available to them as part of their social realities (Phillips & Hardy, 2002). For example, in patriarchal society language is “male […] generic” (Kleinman, 2002, p. 299). Terms that are widely used, such as ‘manpower’, ‘mankind’ and
‘chairman’, illustrate that everyday language is male generic. In this research study
certain utterances that are characteristic of weddings, such as ‘you may now kiss the bride’, ‘what God has joined let no man separate’, ‘who gives this woman to be married to this man?’ further suggest the male generic in talk (Austin, 1962). This language illustrates the differentiation between gendered individuals. Through these utterances men are constructed as active and dominant, and women as passive and subordinate.
Therefore it is noted that discourses reproduce patriarchy (Speer, 2005). In summary, discourses are identified as originating from the twofold understanding that participants create meaning and that meaning is created for the participants through society’s existing language and social interactions (Coyle, 2007). Parker (2005) suggests this when he writes that “we use and are used by language in society” (p. 88).