DEDICATION
2.2 Discourse Analysis
In this section, I have attempted to show the different conceptions of ‘discourse’ which perhaps result from the theoretical inclinations of researchers as influenced by their respective research fields or disciplines. These different understandings of discourse are highly likely to influence the way the study analysis (discourse analysis) is executed. A discussion on discourse analysis follows below.
group discussions. The ambiguities that Alba-Juez cautions about, are essential aspects for this study as they show the permeable and unstable (discursive) nature of discourse.
Discourse analysis seems to be well suited as it is often used as either a theoretical or methodological approach rather than a method of data production (Phillips & Hardy, 2002; Seibold, 2006). This view is based on the premise that discourse analysis is usually employed as an analytical tool, hence its close alignment to the theory or methodology.
Again, in the opinion of Burman, Kottler, Levett and Parker (1997), discourse analysis is sometimes perceived to be too abstract, not easily accessible to some individuals, and thus, is labelled as being too theoretical. However, as a methodology, discourse analysis is seen by Bondarouk and Ruël (2004) to be flexible, allowing for the use of a variety of methods which are known to facilitate the investigation of interrelationships between different texts. Similarly, discourse analysis is further considered by Wodak (2001), to apply the widest array of text. On the contrary, van den Brink and Metze (2006) observe that discourse analysis has been criticised for being too methodologically relativistic in nature, and not being grounded in any particular field. However, they further argue that there has been a plethora of research articles and books from discourse analysis scholars (Howarth & Torfing, 2005; Potter, 2002; Wood & Kroger, 2000) in an attempt to address this concern (van den Brink & Metze, 2006).
In this study, discourse analysis was used as an analytical tool leaning on Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory. The analysis was done in an attempt to interpret and make meaning of the language used by teachers and parents, whether it tweaked in the direction of either denigrating or explicitly / implicitly supporting or empowering what teachers are doing in their work. The silences inherent in the teachers’ and parents’ discourses about teachers’ work, as well as the non-verbal gestures exhibited by the participants in this study, are highlighted in the data analysis section. Discourse analysis was therefore, used in this study to deconstruct the parents’ and teachers’ discourses which were often rhetorical about teachers’ work.
Despite the diversity in the discourse analysis conceptions and uses, there needs to be some common aspects that hold the enterprise together, argues Nikander (2008). She maintains that there are possible aspects of commonality regardless of the heterogeneous nature of discourse analysis. She therefore, proposes that firstly, every discourse analysis
(irrespective of the form or discipline affiliation) be concerned with interrogating, not only the text (language), but also the context (social action). This view is shared by other scholars (Alba-Juez, 2009; Howarth, 2006; Yang & Sun, 2010) who acknowledge that discourse analysis seems to pay attention to other issues which are external to language, for example, culture, politics and other social issues. Secondly, Nikander (2008) suggests that, because the everyday language always seems to be action-oriented, the analysis perhaps needs to take into consideration the interplay of talk, text and interaction. This interaction is also supported by Holmes (2003) who suggests that small-talk, particularly in the workplace, is known to promote collegiality amongst colleagues. Lastly, Nikander (2008) maintains that the seemingly rhetorical nature of discourse pushes for the discourse analyst to be attentive to contrasting arguments or utterances inherent in the text (written or spoken).
The reviewed literature revealed scarcity in the discourse or discourse analysis studies conducted in South Africa, particularly about teachers’ work. The discourse work seems to be more populated in some disciplines, for example, History (Maposa, 2015), Theology / Religion (Du Toit, 2008), Politics (Dedaic & Hunt, 2015; de la Rey, 1997), Media Studies (Buiten, 2009; Nothling, 2012) and Gender and Sexuality Studies (Blumberg &
Soal, 1997; Kantor, 2006; Potgieter, 1997; Hunt, 2015) to mention a few. Furthermore, most of these studies tend to use Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as opposed to pure discourse analysis (DA). From the literature reviewed, there were very few studies of discourse analysis in the education sector, and these few were mostly in the higher education and not the basic6 education sector. This study attempts to fill that gap by making a contribution in the discourse analysis field, in the basic education sector since its focus is on teachers’ work (high school teachers). The rhetoric, which is a form of discourse as enacted by teachers and parents through interviews and group discussions was the unit of analysis. In addition, by adopting and adapting the existing discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe (2001), this study sought to contribute towards understanding the nuances of teachers’ work using a less common tool (discourse analysis). A discussion of rhetoric follows in the next section.
6 In South Africa, basic education sector comprises of the primary and secondary / high school education