CDA AS A RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Critical discourse analysis does not possess a clear demarcation between theory and method as is obtained in other social science disciplines. Fairclough and Chouliaraki (1999, 16) succinctly see:

CDA as both theory and method, as a method for analyzing social practices with particular regards to their discourse moments within the linking of the theoretical and practical concerns and public spheres alluded to, where the ways of analyzing ‘operationalise’—make practical—theoretical constructions of discourse in (late modern) social life, and the analyses contribute to the development and elaboration of these theoretical constructions. We therefore agree with Wacquant (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, 26-35) that it is necessary to avoid both theoreticism—theory for its own sake—and methodologism—seeing method as a theory free means of achieving results

CDA, as such, is a collection of schools of thought that have connection to different grand theories, from micro-sociological perspectives, to theories on society and power in Michel Foucault’s tradition (Fairclough and Wodak), theories of social cognition (Van Dijk) (Wodak and Meyer 2001). Because of these connections to grand social theories, there is no unified method of analysis that is used. Each scholar uses a method that will best address their particular research questions and address the basic thrust of their social theory, a means of mutual operationalization, yet there is a uniformity of purpose, that is, in

86

addressing social problems engendered through language and a belief in the capability of language being, or as, an instrument of power enactment and oppression.

I summarize and harmonize Wodak (1989), Fairclough (2003) and some aspects of van Dijk (2001) to provide below the main tenets and principles of CDA research methodology:

a. Research Interest: CDA addresses social problems to uncover inequality and injustice. In doing this and because it is often the case with marginal research traditions (van Dijk 2001), there is the need to try harder and prove your worth more than in the mainstream traditions in order to be accepted. This has made CDA scholars employ exhaustive analytical processes in efforts to triangulate and strengthen analysis. That is why I employ a multi-disciplinary approach and framework in my data analysis

b. Object under investigation: Language behaviour in natural speech situations of social relevance (institutions, media, minority problems, racism etc.) is to be investigated. All situations which are threatening or involve a power play between individuals are of interest. In essence power relations are partly discursive and should thus be analyzed from a discursive perspective

c. Interdisciplinary research: Social phenomena are too complex to be dealt with adequately in only one field and also because discourse constitutes society and culture and that the link in this constitution is mediated, interdisciplinarity is extremely important. In my literature review chapter, I have discussed various theoretical traditions and how such could help in my analysis and the understanding of social phenomena. For example, the use of speech acts and command language that produces social relations can give a clue to how

‘subjects’ are, or can be, hailed (interpellated).

d. Empirical research: Data from natural speech situations are to be analyzed.

Theory and methodology, values and aims are to be discussed explicitly.

87

e. Inclusion of the historical perspective: Social processes are dynamic, not static.

This has to be reflected in the theory and in the methodology. This is because discourse is also historical. Discourse analysis should not be synchronic alone.

It should also be diachronic as well especially in the aspects of intertextuality i.e. how texts build upon other texts and incorporate them.

f. Researchers are forced to take sides: Especially in empirical research, the

“subjects under investigation” cannot be treated as objects any longer. Research includes the “researched” and, eventually, how a researcher ought to help them (if possible). In this case, the analysis by itself can create critical language awareness by making clear what is (ideologically) made opaque and by emphasizing on the essence of discourse in the creation of social realities.

g. Social and political practice is aimed at: Results of research not only imply success in the academic field, but they should also include proposals for practical implementation. Necessity for new notions of extensions of traditional concepts of “language behavior” and “meaning”: social phenomena are very complex, irrational and rational. Many different and ambivalent, conscious and subconscious motives are relevant. Thus multiple methods, manifest and latent meanings, cognitive and affective aspects are important.

The above tenets are important because this chapter is, in large part, a description of how I have implemented these tenets in my research.

The concept of interdisciplinarity mentioned above is crucial in CDA due to the fact that discourse is a social action. This inroad into the social clearly shows a connection between social phenomena and linguistic phenomena. In essence, there is an attempt to bring

“social science and linguistics together within a single theoretical and analytical framework, setting up a dialogue between them” (Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999, 6).The linguistic turn in social theory has clearly emphasized the importance of language in social intercourse and its symbiotic and dialectical nature. Any piece of language, with close examination, provides data about social perceptions and constructions that may

88

immediately be discernible. Though CDA is sometimes mistaken to represent a 'method' of discourse analysis, it is generally agreed upon by many CDA scholars (Wodak et al) that any explicit method in discourse studies, the humanities and social sciences may be used in CDA research, in so much as it is able to adequately produce insights into the way discourse reproduces or resists social and political inequality, power abuse or domination.

Generally the aim is to argue that social practice is not just given, transcendental and objective but that issues are objectified and that such objectifications are carried out principally through linguistic constructions. It is based on the assumption that powerful groups try to naturalise and conventionalise discourse in a way that makes the dominant ideology appear ‘given’ or ‘taken-for-granted’ or ‘the simple common sense’. CDA does not, as such, limit its analysis to specific structures of text or talk, but systematically relates these to structures of the socio-political context because the influence here is dialectical.

This ‘dissident research’ method may be seen as a reaction against the dominant formal (often “asocial or uncritical”) paradigms of the 1960s and 1970s (van Dijk 2001, 352).

Thus, CDA provides an alternative to traditional epistemology and research that best addresses social inequality and power asymmetries. Far from the non-aligned nature of traditional scholarship or objectivist social science, it believes that issues should not only be observed and explained as innocuous social systems but that such arrangement should be closely observed to manifest the power dynamics and the displacement of the weaker part of society with any clear method that can reveal this. This departure from traditional research has not begun with CDA, as far back as the 1960s Glaser and Strauss (1967) devised a theory that challenged the prevailing sociological method of analysis. Their Grounded Theory subscribes to the supremacy of data and that social science research should examine data, then, based on that, propound a theory that will suit the analysis of that data and context. They maintain that “previous books on methods of social research have focused mainly on how to verify theories. Our basic position is that generating grounded theory is a way of arriving at theory suited to its supposed uses” (Glaser and Strauss 1967, 1-2). This clearly shows that traditional research method is not unassailable and should not be dogmatic. Adorno and Horkheimer (2002) in the Frankfurt School offer a strong critique of positivism and its over-reliance on science, reason, and objectivity.

They argue that instrumental rationality has penetrated all aspects of everyday life and that

89

science has become a tool of social domination and control that actually denies the critical faculty of reason in deference to the empirically provable fact which is an ideological notion in itself.

In their view, science has fallen prey to the scientific method and analysis has become separated from the questions of ethics and ends, being solely focused instead on description, classification and means. This focus is what creates a scientific method with no practical human face. Similarly Van Dijk (2008, 352-353) argues that science, and especially scholarly discourse, is inherently an integral part of, and influenced by, social structure, and produced in social interaction. Instead of denying or ignoring such a relation between scholarship and society, CDA insists that such relations be studied and accounted for in their own peculiar circumstance, and that scholarly practices be based on such insights. “Theory formation, description, and explanation, also in discourse analysis, are socio-politically ‘situated,’. Reflection on the role of scholars in society and the polity thus becomes an inherent part of the discourse analytical enterprise” (van Dijk 2008, 353).