Discourse Analysis - Science topic
Discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies, is a general term for a number of approaches to analyzing written, spoken, signed language use or any significant semiotic event. Research concerning the role of language in constructing institutionalised power and ideology.
Questions related to Discourse Analysis
When doing discourse research, I often feel that the findings based on discourse analysis is not as “important” as those in social science studies (for example, political science). In most cases, the findings are limited to the discourse pattens of the argument which was already common understanding in some social science disciplines. So what can we do to make a difference?
I read an article and was intrigued by their use of discourse analysis + computational methods to track word use associations. Does anyone know suitable primers for computational content analysis? Also, they use QDA Miner-WordStat, but it's only available on PC are there MAC versions available?
I'm hoping to supplement qualitative discourse analysis with content analysis.
I am currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Political Sociology in Germany. I am looking for a friend who is interested in co-writing an article on the topic outlined below or any other related topic. The article is aimed to be published on professional platforms such as Taylor and Sage. Therefore, I am specifically looking for friends, who
- have previous writing experience
- competent in academic English
- familiar to scientific article structure
- come from social science disciplines
If you have any interest in collaborating, please let me know. Thank you.
Example Abstract (Only a Draft):
This article examines the aftermath of the failed coup attempt in Turkey on July 15, 2016, and the subsequent strategies employed by the Erdoğan regime to consolidate its power. Drawing on Gramscian concepts, particularly the notion of cultural hegemony, this study argues that the failed coup d'état has facilitated the development of a culturally rich project based on an Islamo-nationalist discourse. Through contextual discourse analysis, this research analyzes the speeches delivered by President Erdoğan and government officials during the coup attempt era, aiming to demonstrate how populist Islamist-nationalist discourse aligns with the ruling party's agenda.
The findings of this study reveal that the emergence of populist expressions rooted in both Islamist and Turkish nationalist ideologies signifies the successful construction of a collectively reproduced belief system. This belief system has effectively provided narratives of legitimacy for the ruling party, enabling its transformation of state institutions. By harnessing the power of populist discourse, the Erdoğan regime has managed to secure its political dominance and solidify its authority.
The implications of this research shed light on the complex relationship between populism, nationalism, and religious discourse in contemporary Turkish politics. This study underscores the significance of cultural hegemony as a tool for political consolidation and highlights the role of populist rhetoric in shaping the narratives that legitimize transformative actions within state institutions. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for comprehending the ongoing political developments in Turkey and their broader implications for democratic governance.
Keywords: Islamist nationalism, populism, July 15, coup attempt, Turkey
Currently, I am writing my article based on data extracts from teachers' interviews and video recorded classroom interactions. I developed themes and categories of both data inductively. I am planning to utilise both discourse analysis and content analysist, thinking both methods will give me rooms to describe the results from the two data sources sufficiently. Is it possible to utilise two analytical methods in one article? How do I handle the two methods?
The similarity analysis feature in discourses, is an analytical tool of the IRAMUTEQ software. As a result, a tree diagram is generated which can be configured as a Venn diagram. However, the groups of words by similarity starting from a dominant word to the child words, using the co-occurrence principle. In discourse analysis, the semantic domains are checked and the derived words follow the same principle. In this case, in what aspects does IRAMUTEQ's similarity analysis differ from semantic domains in discourse analysis?
My research topic is “India’s Geo-Political and Economic interest: A study of Indo-Pacific region amid Chinese Assertion”. I am looking for most suitable free and open software for qualitative data analysis related to this topic.
From a Critical Discourse Analysis perspective, van Dijk (2015) refers to contextual models as evidence of the interface between the knowledge (mental information) about an event and its significance in the discourse. Thus, the remembrance expressed about a "biographical event" is also a signification of episodic memory. Can we state that contextual models evidence the meaning of memory in discourse?
I’m doing an assignment where I have 6 story completion tasks and I need to apply discourse analysis. Despite reading about the various approaches over and over I’m still confused about which one to choose. I’ve mostly looked at doing either interpretative repertoires or poststructuralist/Foucauldian DA. Is either one of these methods more suited to analysing story completion tasks? The stories talk mostly about experiences that span from childhood until the present moment and how those have affected returning to higher education for mature students.
I am also looking for guidebooks, or any reference articles as a starting point in doing the discourse analysis.
Can I use for example poststructuralist discourse theory in the theoretical framework but then use an other methodology for the analysis (I don't know lets say framing or literature review). Or do I have to use discourse analysis as method as well? Is coding necessary for all discourse analysis? Thank you
I am analysing a textual corpus with 34 obituaries of a recently deceased writer from the point of view of Discourse Analysis. I think that a quantitative analysis of the lexicon used would be interesting. Specifically, I am looking for a way of detecting the specific lexis of these texts (verbs, nouns, adjectives, collocations...). In some articles I have seen that they study the specific lexicon of a politician by comparing it with that of another politician. Here the comparison would be with a general language corpus such as CREA (Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual). I would be grateful for ideas about methods (formulas, programmes...) to measure lexical specificity.
In discourse structure, how graph structure is better than tree. In what way we can create them to use in sentiment analysis. What are the advantages/disavntages of graph and tree. Any suggestions
We are currently evaluating software for the analysis of transcribed video recordings of dialogues. Coding units are episodes, and we want to quantify codings as duration of time. In previous studies, we successfully used Transana for similar analysis.
We are now evaluating to use MAXQDA instead, which does not assist reports of time duration of codings on transcripts, but only number of characters. For the export of duration data, coding has to be on the video, which does not meet standards for linguistic discourse analysis.
Does anybody know studies and/or have experiences with number of characters instead of duration as value for the quantification of transcript-based coding of dialogues?
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience!
Kind regards, Annelies Kreis
Can anyone help with some points of confusion around the fine line that is post-structuralism and social constructionism? I am trying to settle on a theoretical position relating to constructionist epistemological perspectives of voice hearer experiences without going off on a subjectivist ontological tangent. According to MIcheal Crotty subjectivism and constructionism are distinct in thier ontological explanations of reality but does this neccessarily have to lead to distinct methodological approaches? I am interest in exploring the social discourses surrounding lived experiences of mental illness so it seems logical to settle on discursive psychology or critical discourse as it considers the social context of such experiences. According to the mentioned author however, I could be confusing my ontologies ? Am I overthinking this?
Thoughts greatly appreciated!
I wanted to do a discourse analysis of the text on Twitter, but the data was too large and I had to determine a small range, so I did a random sampling. But the data is still too big. Can I do a word frequency count on the sampled data to find the most frequent words and then randomly select the samples for analysis in details?
I'm learning the anti-feminist motives in the MP's for the 1-year time span. In this regard, I will analyze all the transcripts (for the sake of the validity of the data) of the speeches and will focus on the anti-feminist discourses. Still, I have suspicions in terms of the validity and reliability issues.
As per my limited understanding, there are few techniques of analyzing the qualitative data that include
a) thematic analysis
b) content analysis
c) discourse analysis
d) narrative analysis
I am confused about the appropriate use of these techniques in different kind of studies. For example, if we have conducted interviews then we can simply deploy framework or thematic analysis but if we have selected different studies to reach out a new conclusion, what technique should be used?
How is Post-Truth Discourse Related to Environmentalism?
In what ways does Post-Truth affect environmentalism and environmental conservation?
I'm looking for specific answers / cases.
Can you point me in the direction of CDA analysis that you like, which are published in very good journals?
I am mostly interested in organisational and management journals - secondly, accounting journals.
Kind regards, Mai
You may refer to references about critical pragmatics and critical discourse analysis to help you answer the question.
Up on your understanding of dicsourse structure, I would like to share your ideas about the minimal structure of a discourse. Discourse analyists suggest and recommend that for discourse analysis the structure of discourse should not be less than two sentences. However, in the discourse of everyday communication sometimes we encounter the use of sign language or facial expressions and body movements. More particularly, in some places and institutions such as post offices or airports we usually find posters and wall signs telling us not to smoke or lead us to mens' and womens' toilets. The question here is that can we consider these signs and posters to be discourse or not. Thanking you for exhanging your views and comments.
Interestingly, I've found much fewer employing nexus analysis (or mediated discourse analysis) compared with Fairclough's and van Dijk's.
I'm doing a study that needs to compare changes in cyber nationalism.
Can I use the contents posted by people on Twitter for A nationalist incident and the contents posted by people on Facebook for the B nationalist incident to do discourse analysis and compare the changes in nationalist expression?
I read some discourse analysis studies on political science.
Some discourse analysis studies analyze only one example without coding, while others analyze a large number of examples and with coding.
What is the correct amount of data to do a discourse analysis?
For example , if I only have three samples, can I do discourse analysis?
I want to interbreed two models for analyzing data in discourse analysis.
i highly appreciate your help
My regards .
Please I need suggestion of research works done that can be used as best model and/or helpful software programs.
I thank you in advance for you time & kindness!
I wonder if there are studies of how an individual can shape collective behaviour and to what extent. What I mean is the opposite of social influence where a group member obeys collective behaviour, but vice versa how an individual (a politician, a journalist etc.) shapes group behaviour according to his preferences. For example, the capitol riot on 6.01.2021 in Washington and Trump's behaviour -- how Trump manipulated the crowd?
While applying the qualitative content method, discourse analysis was used in an article. To quote the exact phrase, "the researchers have applied qualitative content, a manual technique that allows having a discourse analysis and scientific understanding of the content of the messages analyzed."
Can someone elaborate on how to employ discourse analysis in qualitative content analysis? If possible, please also share some guiding literature on it.
I have collected survey from the fandom, and done a interview with an idol celebrity, to show their perspectives on femininity and queerbaiting, implying and reflection in performance. They are all from one certain girls idol group’s popular music singing dancing concerts. At the next stage, I want to analysis the Dance, makeup and lyric. It can help to promote every point they mentioned. So what method is suitable to do that? Multimodal discourse analysis or content analysis? Could you please give me some relevant researches for me to learn from their studies?
In positioning theory, "speech act" is a central concept. Speech acts are something that is performed by interlocutors in an interaction. But what then is "speech" itself, i.e. without the addition of "act"? What is speech when it is not an action/a performance? And how would one analyze "speech" if not by analyzing acts/actions/performances?
I'm trying to select the optimal approach to my research study and I'm having some doubts about solely using semiotics. My plan is to carry out a semiotic analysis on a small selection of visual texts (video ads), however I intend to not only analyse the mise-en-scène, sound, and camerawork, but also examine the text that appears on screen and what the voiceover says throughout the length of the commercials.
Thus, my question would be if I look at let's call them verbal aspects, would that mean I will also have to adopt discourse analysis or rhetorical analysis as a research method along semiotics? I'm asking this because I feel like a semiotic analysis would only help me to uncover the visual meaning and if I look at 'written text' I should employ a different approach. But on the other hand, I'm not trying to go in depth with the analysis. I would say that much of what I would do would involve an interpretation, similar to analysing a metaphor.
Thank you in advance for your answers. Any help is appreciated.
For a few years now, I have dedicated a part of my research and publications to the problem of hate speech on social networks. I am currently outlining a new article on that. There is something that makes me worried. It seems obvious that there are easily labelable and traceable hate speeches (especially in cyberspace with the help of automatic word processing software). Many published works provide today relevant data that allows detecting hate speech and identifying potentially criminal users masked under pseudo anonymity.
My concern is whether there would be another way to better approach hate speech without departing from purely scientific objectives, without contributing to the materialization of a kind of Linguistic Court willing to rule on the acceptability of expressions, perhaps in order to cleaning, fixing and giving “splendour” to digital language, improving, incidentally, the public image of social platforms and regulating the coexistence in cyberspace in such a way that only “good people” could participate ?
The truth is that, in addition to those speeches that explicitly express hatred, there is an untraceable, ungrammaticalizable hatred that resists both Logic and Empiricism. The question I ask you is if there is someone else who, like me, fears the risks of such practices of identifying "bad speeches" that could be used to purify the language, limiting freedom of expression? (sorry for my English, which is a language I use very rarely)
I need to find a journal that applies discourse analysis, but I am having trouble finding one.
Does anyone have a suggestion on how to look for such journals or maybe even have a specific one in mind?
Thank you very much.
In fact, I need to know the analytical tools related to discourse analysis that might be used to tackle a literary discourse (precisely poems). I also need the names of the prominent linguists who pioneered the concepts in discourse analysis that are suitable to analyze a literary discourse.
Thank you in advance.
I am preparing a Post-Doc project about the identity of Islamist Extremists. In this regard, is there any book (s) from Islamist extremists that can be analyzed by the methodology of discourse analysis and/or content analysis?
I want to analyze the characters of the Hindi language feature film, No One Killed Jessica, and by characters I mean all the characters in the film, irrespective of gender. So, I want to know if there is any sort of criteria or any rules to follow while analyzing a character? How to go about it? Like, what should be the first step for analyzing? Do I have to measure the character against something?
Crismore et al. (1993) define metadiscourse as: "linguistic material in texts, written or spoken, which does not add anything to the propositional content but that is intended to help the listener or reader organize, interpret and evaluate the information."
I am working on my bachelor thesis right now. My vision was to extract some sort of information flow between platforms. Concretely, I wanted to analyse 4chan /pol/ posts from 2016 and US-Presidential Candidate Tweets from the same time period in order to determine in which direction information goes, which side of the analysis "creates" the information. Does the political entity lead the conversation or follow it?
In my research I already pinned down that I need to compare topics and their emergence time. I also read a lot about discourse analysis. But lacking a gotcha-moment, I am starting to doubt how feasable this is. Especially because I can't find any similar works in the research field.
So my question is, is something like this doable? If not, is there an similar alternative research question where I can keep the data and methods?
Even if you think the question might not deserve an answer because of any reason, I would be very thankful if you could at least share some keywords that come to your mind when reading the question.
Thank you and have a nice day!
In most examples of discourse analysis, the focus has been on big knowledge structures (discourses) and not on smaller discursive elements (memes). Yet, it seems that you need to analyze the evolution of discursive elements and memes to see, how discourses evolve over time and how discourses inherit ideas from each other.
Do you have any examples of such methodological combination of discourse analysis and memetics? Such methodological tools would be very useful in my analysis of the different discourses that lead some Finnish organizations to prohibit face mask usage from their employees (see attached diagram).
I am working with a CAQDAS and my project entails critically analyzing the power discourses in both public and privately sourced documents. I haven't got much experience doing CDA though and many texts I have come across hardly explain how to do CDA with qualitative software.
My real question is: is preliminary coding (of doc segments) necessary for doing CDA?
I am thinking of two options:
1. do coding of segments of the different docs, thereafter continue critical analyzing the discourse in relatedly coded segments. OR
2. start the critical analyses right away from each document and somehow develop (or not) codes from the critical discussions generated from the findings.
Suggested texts are welcome. Thank you.
Research in "Discourse Analysis of Identity Reflection in Mass Media" will be quite beneficial for me. Any Identity of Any Nation/Nationality.
I am currently planning a research project/Masters dissertation about women perpetrators of the Holocaust, and I am intrested in doing some primary research. I would like to access photographs of SS women and nurses in particular. I would like to explore these frontline perpetrators' dual role as 'ordinary' German women and merciless killers.
I am currently writing my thesis, and I feel like I am stuck in the design.
My research goal is to gain a better insight on the policy discourse of the World Bank in the case of the Land Administration Program in Ghana.
A little background info: Implementation of customary land tenure is quite often included within donor projects to establish land security. However, it often leads to negative consequences for poor farmers and female farmers, despite some efforts by developmental organizations in avoiding these consequences (think of local elites who abuse their power or sexism).
The aim of this thesis is to contribute to an understanding on why the World Bank follows a discourse of implementing customary tenure, and how the organization tries to harmonize the struggle of both women’s rights and the implementation of customary tenure.
So, in short, I would like to better understand the 'ideological' grounds of the World Bank in the case of the LAP, in order to better understand their support of customary tenure despite its possible negative consequences. What drives them towards this decision, despite the scientific critics on customary tenure?
In order to do so, I want to conduct a discourse analysis by analyzing policy documents of the World Bank considering this program. However, at this point I feel a bit stuck on how to proceed. Am I in the right direction? What kind of discourse analysis would be appropriate?
I am looking forward to some help!
Thanks in advance
I'm doing a project on emergency team communication (in simulation). The data is videotapes, and I will do a turn-by-turn analysis of the talk.
Hello to all,
I am doing research on the representation of dreams in the works of Muslim Mystics in the middle ages. I am interested to know what "dreams" meant to them and how they used it. I have collected about 250 dream accounts from Persian and Arabic texts. I am not concerned with the explicit contents of these dreams. I would like to take a critical look at the authors' underlying ideas and goals. Specifically, for each dream account, I would like to consider four related questions:
1- What this dream account is telling us?
2- What does the author want to say by reporting this dream?
3- dreaming is considered as...
4- What are the latent or unwritten messages or implications of this dream report?
In short, I know what kind of analysis I would like to do, but I am looking for a named approach. Would you recommend that I use discourse analysis (if so, which type of DA?) or critical thematic analysis to answer these research questions? Or would you know a more suitable method(ology) for my research?
Thank you very much for your attention.
Some researchers argue that discourse analysis still lacks a clear methodology. It is considered impressionistic interpretations, depends on subjective matters such as: the strength of argument, truthfulness, and purity of purpose. This means if we lose one of these conditions, the results cannot be trusted.
The question to our colleagues: how to solve these methodological problems.
I'm doing a comparative study on social media language used by native and non-native speakers with special reference to Instagram. I am planning on using Discourse analysis. What is your take on this? Could anyone please suggest me what else can be used?
I am working on Writer Identity and have selected these three Macro features to analyse students' writing. The micro features as I have read in different studies may be used are grammar and vocabulary for textual analysis. Since this is my first experience with qualitative study and discourse analysis and I am a novice researcher I dont know how to go about it? I have read a lot but even then not able to decide whether what I am doing is correct or not. Your expert opinions may help me with my confusion,
I am going to carry out research and my primary sources are the discourses of top level political leaders. I am going to use qualitative discourse analysis.
I am conducting research on Multimodal Discourse Analysis (MMDA) field. Which are the seminal works (books, papers, ...) in Multimodal Discourse Analysis (MMDA)?
I really appreciate knowing other researchers' point of view.
I am planning on doing a Discourse Analysis of French newspapers. One of the things I wish to do is to analyse frames. However, I have problems deducting or defining appropriate frames. I wish to ask the community how should I proceed? Do you have any relevant literature that might be helpful?
Thank you very much!
For a social constructivist approach focusing on individuals' perceptions of risk, is there a specific discourse analysis tool that may be more suitable?
I have been reading about it, and found that perhaps the Big D may be suitable but still not sure.
Are there essential readings I should be focusing on that I am missing out?
Thank you all
I have filmed 20/30 participants each for my two studies about migratory decisions and creative resilience actions. The first one I have used Q methodology and aiming to use factor analysis. The second one, I am using autovideographical techniques and aiming to use discourse analysis.
However, I am confused among these three: factor analysis, descriptive discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis, and video interpretive analysis. Any comments, links etc. distinguishing each from the others will be useful. Many Thanks. Rabbani
Since, the discourse analysis naturally occurring in language of any social context ; can the meaning of architectural language fall into these categories?
I have been tasked to write a media report about a conflict (in my case the annexation of Crimea) for an assignment due soon.
I have decided to compare The following documentaries:
Crimea for Dummies by Russia Today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xURFKxliGh8
Ukraine Today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU6wFr9pwZE
Select a suitable method, or productive combination of methods, to analyse this (whether, for example, content analysis, semiotics or another form of visual analysis, critical linguistics or discourse analysis).
What method would you recommend to analyse and compare the two? I’ve looked at a content analysis, but the methodologies and their results (formulas, symbols and numbers etc.) have completely discombobulated me.
I also have also not got a clue on how to create a code book, since i’ve struggled to find a single study which compares two visual documentaries like above.
I have been been told to explain why these broadcasters. I have done already done this. but I’ve also been told that I could “Maybe - differing accounts of the rationale for war? different thematic focus’ and what this may mean/suggest? Different voices in play, and what this may mean etc/“
I am stressed out and am feeling extremely stupid at this present time.
Any help would be appreciated.
Could you help me distinguish between topicalization and a preposed focal constituent? I am working with a Sub-Bantu language that is typically SVO.
According to Levinsohn, topicalization is "takes place when a CONSTITUENT is moved to the font of a sentence, so that it functions as a point of departure."
Also according to Levinsohn: "The option exists in many languages for focal constituents to be placed either late in the sentence or preposed (following the point of departure if any)."
I have two examples in one text. In the first, a man discovers a dead animal in a clearing. He asks a parrot who had killed it. In (1), the parrot responds that it was HE who killed it. This phrase contains what I am currently calling a FOCUS marker, and I believe that it is a preposed focal constituent.
(1) Kosu naa <jɛ si mez jol bupa yɔɔ>. parrot COMP 3SG FOC P1 kill animal DEM ‘The parrot (said) that (it was) he who killed that animal.’
Then, the parrot pointed out that he was there standing on one leg. In Sentence (2) below he preposes the object 'my other leg' before the subject, but without the focus marker.
(2) <<Kɔl waambɔ fɔku j=a bo toklɛ>>. leg 1SG.POSS other 3PL=P1 PRF take ‘“… my other leg, they took.”’
In another text, I have several sisters going fishing. The smarter sisters conspire to trick the foolish sister. In (3) they tell the foolish one that they are not going to catch fish, but worms instead. Here the object is also preposed and the focus marker is present.
(3) Sɛ m=è nɛmbu kɛɛ iya ŋkaŋ si sɛ kɛ nɛ 1PL PRS=NEG catch fish since worms FOC 1PL go with ‘“We are not going to catch fish since we are only going to bring worms.”’
It seems to me that (1) and (3) would be considered preposed focal constituents and that (2) would be topicalization. However, (2) and (3) seem very similar to me other than the fact that there is no focus marker in (2). What do you think?
*UPDATE* the interlinears did not show up well, please see the attached screen capture.
There is some critique that I'm trying to find answers to and need your input in it.
Mostly, in order to develop a theory I have seen the usage of Grounded Theory Approach of Strauss, Corbin & Charmaz. Likewise, earlier there were others such as Eisenhardt, Cresswel who talk about developing theories from Case Studies. I have also read a coding manual developed by Saldana. I have noticed something similar in all three types of analysis' methods. "The construction is done through categorizing the data by using one order i.e. a three tier method of coding" for instance Raw Data, Preliminary Codes, Final Code, compare that with Identifying Themes, Reviewing Themes, Naming Themes similarly in GT Initial Coding, Axial Coding, Theoretical Coding. (Whether done using CAQDAS, Atlasti or QSR Invivo)
The criticism is even worst* when we combine one or more multiple methods of analysis within cases e.g. using FGDs & Interviews as data collection for a case and grounded theory approach, thematic analysis, discourse analysis etc. as data analysis techniques?
*[Where it is OK for them to use descriptive and inferential or non parametric techniques all together in one study not to mention data normalization & transformation tests that are used first to re-fine [ or re-define] the data] :)
How to counter such types of arguments by post-positivists and quantitative researchers? Is there a way out? I am stuck. I know there are philosophical differences but I need your opinions as well.
Thanks a lot!
- Based on the model presented by Goh and Burns in "Teaching Speaking: A Holistic Approach" (Page 53), it seems that we have two sides of a bridge in terms of second language speaking competence. One of them is knowledge, and the other one is the skill. The "knowledge" phase puts the emphasis on teaching the components related to the knowledge of a language such as grammatical points, vocabulary, idioms, etc. Based on my interpretations of the first four chapters of the book, it seems that teaching the "knowledge" of a language is not going to result in competent second language learners in terms of their speaking competence. In fact, it seems that beginning the process of language teaching from the "knowledge" side is not going to reach to the other side of the bridge that is the skill.
- If we investigate the other side of the bridge, the skill has some key features. A skill is unconscious, automatic, etc. Based on the mentioned model, moving from the bottom of the triangle to the top (from the skill to knowledge) might have better results in the sense of speaking competence. In fact, adding the needed knowledge to the already-gained skill might let the learners have access to the knowledge in a blink of an eye for negotiation of meaning while the needed knowledge without the presence of the needed skill might not be accessible for the negotiation of meaning. Metaphorically speaking, having a glass prior to pouring water in, is more logical than having water with no glass.
- Having the mentioned points in mind, some language teachers limit the teaching a language to its knowledge. Now there are several questions to be asked:
- 1. How can teachers move from skill to knowledge in practice?
- 2. Do material designers consider such theoretical issues in designing coursebooks?
- 3. Is there any relationship between the Interface hypothesis and the mentioned issues?
- Goh, C. C., & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
I am looking into how the British portray the Nigerians in two newspapers and was wondering how best to go about discourse analysis as I haven't conducted one before.
Although I already finished one research project which includes visual data analysis I'm still looking for tips and tricks on visual data analysis.
How do You collect data?
How do You analyse visual data?
How do You interpret visual data?
What are your topics of visual data analysis?
And here you are piece of work which I am co-author:
It strikes me as if discourse analysis is concerned with all that is taking place or is implicated in discourse; that is, all that ‘lies hidden’, as Michel Foucault would say, in the depths and in fact all levels of discourse, to enable it ‘to emerge and become clearly visible’. In this case, discourse analysis is to proceed in two stages: exploration, for example by means of philology, and secondly by description. But quite other tools and procedures than these are probably called for in approaches to discourse where the guiding principle is to point out the item of communication, whether intended or not, which is received consciously or subliminally, showing how the transmission and reception are achieved. Which of these two approaches describes adequately the task of discourse analysis; or should we rather be searching for a practice that combines the explanation of all that is going on in discourse with focus on information content that is passed across or garnered?