In definition of discourse analysis, theorist Fran Tonkiss (2018) notes that there are key difficulties facing researchers who utilise this method. Overall, discourse analysis acts as an insight into the effects of ‘speech and texts’ on the shaping and reproduction of knowledge and social meaning (p.478). When considering critical or political discourse analysis, this method can further demonstrate how languages and texts perform and reproduce an ideology. Ergo, critical discourse analysis becomes intertwined with power and hegemony – how discourse is ‘reproduced, legitimised and exercised’ within society and through social institutions (p.480).
The difficulty is that discourse analysis is perceived as a “craft skill” (Potter and Wetherell, 1994, p.55 in Tonkiss, 2018, p.485); it has no strict rules, rather it can only be learned through doing. However, Tonkiss identifies that simply having a familiarity with a dataset – or understanding its “interpretive repertoires” – can help in creating ‘a framework in which to consider its inconsistencies, internal workings and small strategies of meaning’ (p.485). As such, discourse analysis becomes highly subjective and interpretive on part of the researcher. Nevertheless, Tonkiss presents four useful starting points for analysing a piece of discourse which could act as its pseudo-rules:
‘Identifying key themes and arguments.
Looking for association and variation.
Examining characterisation and agency.
Paying attention to emphasis and silences.’
(p.486)
The utilisation of these “rules” can be seen through the discourse analysis of UK media coverage of refugees researched by Philo, Briant and Donald (2013). This case study gathers its research sample from both television and press media in the week of June 2nd, 2011 and focuses its discourse analysis on ‘asylum-related broadcasts’ (p.87). This sample period was chosen because the government backlog in asylum cases, originally reported in 2006, was cleared during this week. As such, there was a milieu of discourse demonstrating knowledge production and ideology regarding refugees.
Firstly, Philo et al. divided their research under recurring themes – such as ‘conflation of forced economic migration’ – and then further separated this into television and press news reporting (p.95). From this, the researchers could understand shared and contrasting views across the news media and therefore understand what ideology is being presented and how it may shape knowledge. One interesting thing Philo et al. observed within their research were silences regarding the term “asylum seeker” or “undocumented immigrant” – as preferred terms by the United Nations – versus the emphasis placed upon illegality. More so, they observed a silence through ‘read[ing] against the grain’ in their discussion of Lunchtime News’ decision not to use the term “illegal immigrant” (Tonkiss, 2018, p.490). Even though they did not use this negative term, they frame an ideology that ‘asylum seekers might not be “genuine”’ through the context of their discussion (Philo et al., 2013, p.99). Therefore, their silence demonstrates their ideology.
In conclusion, the main issue discourse analysts face when approaching a dataset is a lack of linearity or rules. Yet, to overcome this hurdle, researchers can use their understanding of a text – for example, viewing recurring themes, identifying who is given agency, considering what is not said – to create a framework. Therefore, as Tonkiss notes, the research becomes less about ‘looking for conclusive answers’ and rather ‘looking at…both the problem, and possible solutions’ as a means to construct meaning (p.482).
References:
Tonkiss, F. (2018). Discourse Analysis (pp.477-492). In C. Seale (ed.) Researching Society and Culture. London: Sage.
Philo, G., Briant, E.,and Donald, P. (2013). Case Studies of Media Content, 2011 (pp.87-130). In Bad News for Refugees. London: Pluto Press.
MCS Group One 