discursive psychology research question examples

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on August 23, 2019 by Amy Luo . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Critical discourse analysis (or discourse analysis) is a research method for studying written or spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real life situations.

When you conduct discourse analysis, you might focus on:

• The purposes and effects of different types of language
• Cultural rules and conventions in communication
• How values, beliefs and assumptions are communicated
• How language use relates to its social, political and historical context

Discourse analysis is a common qualitative research method in many humanities and social science disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology and cultural studies.  

Table of contents

What is discourse analysis used for, how is discourse analysis different from other methods, how to conduct discourse analysis, other interesting articles.

Conducting discourse analysis means examining how language functions and how meaning is created in different social contexts. It can be applied to any instance of written or oral language, as well as non-verbal aspects of communication such as tone and gestures.

Materials that are suitable for discourse analysis include:

• Books, newspapers and periodicals
• Marketing material, such as brochures and advertisements
• Business and government documents
• Websites, forums, social media posts and comments
• Interviews and conversations

By analyzing these types of discourse, researchers aim to gain an understanding of social groups and how they communicate.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Unlike linguistic approaches that focus only on the rules of language use, discourse analysis emphasizes the contextual meaning of language.

It focuses on the social aspects of communication and the ways people use language to achieve specific effects (e.g. to build trust, to create doubt, to evoke emotions, or to manage conflict).

Instead of focusing on smaller units of language, such as sounds, words or phrases, discourse analysis is used to study larger chunks of language, such as entire conversations, texts, or collections of texts. The selected sources can be analyzed on multiple levels.

Discourse analysis is a qualitative and interpretive method of analyzing texts (in contrast to more systematic methods like content analysis ). You make interpretations based on both the details of the material itself and on contextual knowledge.

There are many different approaches and techniques you can use to conduct discourse analysis, but the steps below outline the basic structure you need to follow. Following these steps can help you avoid pitfalls of confirmation bias that can cloud your analysis.

Step 1: Define the research question and select the content of analysis

To do discourse analysis, you begin with a clearly defined research question . Once you have developed your question, select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it.

Discourse analysis is a method that can be applied both to large volumes of material and to smaller samples, depending on the aims and timescale of your research.

Step 2: Gather information and theory on the context

Next, you must establish the social and historical context in which the material was produced and intended to be received. Gather factual details of when and where the content was created, who the author is, who published it, and whom it was disseminated to.

As well as understanding the real-life context of the discourse, you can also conduct a literature review on the topic and construct a theoretical framework to guide your analysis.

Step 3: Analyze the content for themes and patterns

This step involves closely examining various elements of the material – such as words, sentences, paragraphs, and overall structure – and relating them to attributes, themes, and patterns relevant to your research question.

Step 4: Review your results and draw conclusions

Once you have assigned particular attributes to elements of the material, reflect on your results to examine the function and meaning of the language used. Here, you will consider your analysis in relation to the broader context that you established earlier to draw conclusions that answer your research question.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Luo, A. (2023, June 22). Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 11, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/discourse-analysis/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

What is qualitative research | methods & examples, what is a case study | definition, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Discursive Psychology Theory, Method and Applications

• Sally Wiggins - Linköping University, Sweden
• Description

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

This is a timely and exciting contribution to Discourse Analysis work in Psychology. Authoratitive, accessible and working with new developments in discursive psychological research, it is a useful read for new and established scholars alike.

Wiggins has produced a text which is at the same time authoritative and readable; combining smart scholarship with engaging writing.  It offers a comprehensive account of the development, current status and future of discursive psychology which is up to date and a must read for anyone wanting to know about this important disciplinary area.  Wiggins’ depth of understanding shines through as she elegantly captures the complexities of the field.  

Discursive psychologists take a strong line on psychological issues, insisting that attitudes, emotions, identities and the like be analysed as public, inspectable features of social interaction. Wiggins’ book is an inviting, and utterly comprehensive, guide to discursive psychology. A delightful read for students and academics seeking to find what lies beyond cognitivism.

This book is a real ‘game-changer’, and one that those of us who teach discursive psychology have needed for years.  Students now have an accessible and comprehensive guide to this intellectually vibrant approach, which includes lots of clear examples, useful practical advice and ideas for students doing their own projects.  Wiggins succeeds in her aim of demystifying discursive psychology and challenging those who would argue that it is too complicated for undergraduate students.  This is a fine book that deserves to be used widely in undergraduate and postgraduate teaching in psychology and beyond.

This book provides “one-stop shopping” with respect to helping readers develop familiarity with DP, and the types and functions of DP devices, through actual practice.

Easily the most comprehensive book, to date, that situates and differentiates a Discursive Psychological approach with other discourse analytic approaches, and follows up with a 'how-to' scaffolding of analytic examples that both novices and seasoned veterans will find eminently readable, crisp, and helpful.  

This book has achieved something very unique. It provides a compelling argument for the specific commitments and benefits of a Discursive Psychology (DP) approach to analysing talk and text but does so in a way that is not at all exclusionary or imperialist with regards to its treatment of other forms of discourse analytic work. Indeed, readers of this book (be they the student novice or the more experienced analyst) will emerge with not only with a greater appreciation of DP, but also with a clearer understanding of the structure of the broader terrain of discourse analysis and DP's particular place within it. Moreover, this feat is pulled off with an engaging style that will make this book approachable to all. I will certainly be using this book in both my undergraduate and postgraduate teaching. 

Preview this book

Sample materials & chapters.

Chapter 1: Discursive Psychology

Select a Purchasing Option

Related products.

This title is also available on SAGE Knowledge , the ultimate social sciences online library. If your library doesn’t have access, ask your librarian to start a trial .

This title is also available on SAGE Research Methods , the ultimate digital methods library. If your library doesn’t have access, ask your librarian to start a trial .

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Discourse Analysis – Methods, Types and Examples

Discourse Analysis – Methods, Types and Examples

Table of Contents

Discourse Analysis

Definition:

Discourse Analysis is a method of studying how people use language in different situations to understand what they really mean and what messages they are sending. It helps us understand how language is used to create social relationships and cultural norms.

It examines language use in various forms of communication such as spoken, written, visual or multi-modal texts, and focuses on how language is used to construct social meaning and relationships, and how it reflects and reinforces power dynamics, ideologies, and cultural norms.

Types of Discourse Analysis

Some of the most common types of discourse analysis are:

Conversation Analysis

This type of discourse analysis focuses on analyzing the structure of talk and how participants in a conversation make meaning through their interaction. It is often used to study face-to-face interactions, such as interviews or everyday conversations.

Critical discourse Analysis

This approach focuses on the ways in which language use reflects and reinforces power relations, social hierarchies, and ideologies. It is often used to analyze media texts or political speeches, with the aim of uncovering the hidden meanings and assumptions that are embedded in these texts.

Discursive Psychology

This type of discourse analysis focuses on the ways in which language use is related to psychological processes such as identity construction and attribution of motives. It is often used to study narratives or personal accounts, with the aim of understanding how individuals make sense of their experiences.

Multimodal Discourse Analysis

This approach focuses on analyzing not only language use, but also other modes of communication, such as images, gestures, and layout. It is often used to study digital or visual media, with the aim of understanding how different modes of communication work together to create meaning.

Corpus-based Discourse Analysis

This type of discourse analysis uses large collections of texts, or corpora, to analyze patterns of language use across different genres or contexts. It is often used to study language use in specific domains, such as academic writing or legal discourse.

Descriptive Discourse

This type of discourse analysis aims to describe the features and characteristics of language use, without making any value judgments or interpretations. It is often used in linguistic studies to describe grammatical structures or phonetic features of language.

Narrative Discourse

This approach focuses on analyzing the structure and content of stories or narratives, with the aim of understanding how they are constructed and how they shape our understanding of the world. It is often used to study personal narratives or cultural myths.

Expository Discourse

This type of discourse analysis is used to study texts that explain or describe a concept, process, or idea. It aims to understand how information is organized and presented in such texts and how it influences the reader’s understanding of the topic.

Argumentative Discourse

This approach focuses on analyzing texts that present an argument or attempt to persuade the reader or listener. It aims to understand how the argument is constructed, what strategies are used to persuade, and how the audience is likely to respond to the argument.

Discourse Analysis Conducting Guide

Here is a step-by-step guide for conducting discourse analysis:

• What are you trying to understand about the language use in a particular context?
• What are the key concepts or themes that you want to explore?
• Select the data: Decide on the type of data that you will analyze, such as written texts, spoken conversations, or media content. Consider the source of the data, such as news articles, interviews, or social media posts, and how this might affect your analysis.
• Transcribe or collect the data: If you are analyzing spoken language, you will need to transcribe the data into written form. If you are using written texts, make sure that you have access to the full text and that it is in a format that can be easily analyzed.
• Read and re-read the data: Read through the data carefully, paying attention to key themes, patterns, and discursive features. Take notes on what stands out to you and make preliminary observations about the language use.
• Develop a coding scheme : Develop a coding scheme that will allow you to categorize and organize different types of language use. This might include categories such as metaphors, narratives, or persuasive strategies, depending on your research question.
• Code the data: Use your coding scheme to analyze the data, coding different sections of text or spoken language according to the categories that you have developed. This can be a time-consuming process, so consider using software tools to assist with coding and analysis.
• Analyze the data: Once you have coded the data, analyze it to identify patterns and themes that emerge. Look for similarities and differences across different parts of the data, and consider how different categories of language use are related to your research question.
• Interpret the findings: Draw conclusions from your analysis and interpret the findings in relation to your research question. Consider how the language use in your data sheds light on broader cultural or social issues, and what implications it might have for understanding language use in other contexts.
• Write up the results: Write up your findings in a clear and concise way, using examples from the data to support your arguments. Consider how your research contributes to the broader field of discourse analysis and what implications it might have for future research.

Applications of Discourse Analysis

Here are some of the key areas where discourse analysis is commonly used:

• Political discourse: Discourse analysis can be used to analyze political speeches, debates, and media coverage of political events. By examining the language used in these contexts, researchers can gain insight into the political ideologies, values, and agendas that underpin different political positions.
• Media analysis: Discourse analysis is frequently used to analyze media content, including news reports, television shows, and social media posts. By examining the language used in media content, researchers can understand how media narratives are constructed and how they influence public opinion.
• Education : Discourse analysis can be used to examine classroom discourse, student-teacher interactions, and educational policies. By analyzing the language used in these contexts, researchers can gain insight into the social and cultural factors that shape educational outcomes.
• Healthcare : Discourse analysis is used in healthcare to examine the language used by healthcare professionals and patients in medical consultations. This can help to identify communication barriers, cultural differences, and other factors that may impact the quality of healthcare.
• Marketing and advertising: Discourse analysis can be used to analyze marketing and advertising messages, including the language used in product descriptions, slogans, and commercials. By examining these messages, researchers can gain insight into the cultural values and beliefs that underpin consumer behavior.

When to use Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is a valuable research methodology that can be used in a variety of contexts. Here are some situations where discourse analysis may be particularly useful:

• When studying language use in a particular context: Discourse analysis can be used to examine how language is used in a specific context, such as political speeches, media coverage, or healthcare interactions. By analyzing language use in these contexts, researchers can gain insight into the social and cultural factors that shape communication.
• When exploring the meaning of language: Discourse analysis can be used to examine how language is used to construct meaning and shape social reality. This can be particularly useful in fields such as sociology, anthropology, and cultural studies.
• When examining power relations: Discourse analysis can be used to examine how language is used to reinforce or challenge power relations in society. By analyzing language use in contexts such as political discourse, media coverage, or workplace interactions, researchers can gain insight into how power is negotiated and maintained.
• When conducting qualitative research: Discourse analysis can be used as a qualitative research method, allowing researchers to explore complex social phenomena in depth. By analyzing language use in a particular context, researchers can gain rich and nuanced insights into the social and cultural factors that shape communication.

Examples of Discourse Analysis

Here are some examples of discourse analysis in action:

• A study of media coverage of climate change: This study analyzed media coverage of climate change to examine how language was used to construct the issue. The researchers found that media coverage tended to frame climate change as a matter of scientific debate rather than a pressing environmental issue, thereby undermining public support for action on climate change.
• A study of political speeches: This study analyzed political speeches to examine how language was used to construct political identity. The researchers found that politicians used language strategically to construct themselves as trustworthy and competent leaders, while painting their opponents as untrustworthy and incompetent.
• A study of medical consultations: This study analyzed medical consultations to examine how language was used to negotiate power and authority between doctors and patients. The researchers found that doctors used language to assert their authority and control over medical decisions, while patients used language to negotiate their own preferences and concerns.
• A study of workplace interactions: This study analyzed workplace interactions to examine how language was used to construct social identity and maintain power relations. The researchers found that language was used to construct a hierarchy of power and status within the workplace, with those in positions of authority using language to assert their dominance over subordinates.

Purpose of Discourse Analysis

The purpose of discourse analysis is to examine the ways in which language is used to construct social meaning, relationships, and power relations. By analyzing language use in a systematic and rigorous way, discourse analysis can provide valuable insights into the social and cultural factors that shape communication and interaction.

The specific purposes of discourse analysis may vary depending on the research context, but some common goals include:

• To understand how language constructs social reality: Discourse analysis can help researchers understand how language is used to construct meaning and shape social reality. By analyzing language use in a particular context, researchers can gain insight into the cultural and social factors that shape communication.
• To identify power relations: Discourse analysis can be used to examine how language use reinforces or challenges power relations in society. By analyzing language use in contexts such as political discourse, media coverage, or workplace interactions, researchers can gain insight into how power is negotiated and maintained.
• To explore social and cultural norms: Discourse analysis can help researchers understand how social and cultural norms are constructed and maintained through language use. By analyzing language use in different contexts, researchers can gain insight into how social and cultural norms are reproduced and challenged.
• To provide insights for social change: Discourse analysis can provide insights that can be used to promote social change. By identifying problematic language use or power imbalances, researchers can provide insights that can be used to challenge social norms and promote more equitable and inclusive communication.

Characteristics of Discourse Analysis

Here are some key characteristics of discourse analysis:

• Focus on language use: Discourse analysis is centered on language use and how it constructs social meaning, relationships, and power relations.
• Multidisciplinary approach: Discourse analysis draws on theories and methodologies from a range of disciplines, including linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and psychology.
• Systematic and rigorous methodology: Discourse analysis employs a systematic and rigorous methodology, often involving transcription and coding of language data, in order to identify patterns and themes in language use.
• Contextual analysis : Discourse analysis emphasizes the importance of context in shaping language use, and takes into account the social and cultural factors that shape communication.
• Focus on power relations: Discourse analysis often examines power relations and how language use reinforces or challenges power imbalances in society.
• Interpretive approach: Discourse analysis is an interpretive approach, meaning that it seeks to understand the meaning and significance of language use from the perspective of the participants in a particular discourse.
• Emphasis on reflexivity: Discourse analysis emphasizes the importance of reflexivity, or self-awareness, in the research process. Researchers are encouraged to reflect on their own positionality and how it may shape their interpretation of language use.

Advantages of Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis has several advantages as a methodological approach. Here are some of the main advantages:

• Provides a detailed understanding of language use: Discourse analysis allows for a detailed and nuanced understanding of language use in specific social contexts. It enables researchers to identify patterns and themes in language use, and to understand how language constructs social reality.
• Emphasizes the importance of context : Discourse analysis emphasizes the importance of context in shaping language use. By taking into account the social and cultural factors that shape communication, discourse analysis provides a more complete understanding of language use than other approaches.
• Allows for an examination of power relations: Discourse analysis enables researchers to examine power relations and how language use reinforces or challenges power imbalances in society. By identifying problematic language use, discourse analysis can contribute to efforts to promote social justice and equality.
• Provides insights for social change: Discourse analysis can provide insights that can be used to promote social change. By identifying problematic language use or power imbalances, researchers can provide insights that can be used to challenge social norms and promote more equitable and inclusive communication.
• Multidisciplinary approach: Discourse analysis draws on theories and methodologies from a range of disciplines, including linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and psychology. This multidisciplinary approach allows for a more holistic understanding of language use in social contexts.

Limitations of Discourse Analysis

Some Limitations of Discourse Analysis are as follows:

• Time-consuming and resource-intensive: Discourse analysis can be a time-consuming and resource-intensive process. Collecting and transcribing language data can be a time-consuming task, and analyzing the data requires careful attention to detail and a significant investment of time and resources.
• Limited generalizability: Discourse analysis is often focused on a particular social context or community, and therefore the findings may not be easily generalized to other contexts or populations. This means that the insights gained from discourse analysis may have limited applicability beyond the specific context being studied.
• Interpretive nature: Discourse analysis is an interpretive approach, meaning that it relies on the interpretation of the researcher to identify patterns and themes in language use. This subjectivity can be a limitation, as different researchers may interpret language data differently.
• Limited quantitative analysis: Discourse analysis tends to focus on qualitative analysis of language data, which can limit the ability to draw statistical conclusions or make quantitative comparisons across different language uses or contexts.
• Ethical considerations: Discourse analysis may involve the collection and analysis of sensitive language data, such as language related to trauma or marginalization. Researchers must carefully consider the ethical implications of collecting and analyzing this type of data, and ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of participants is protected.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Cluster Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

Discriminant Analysis – Methods, Types and...

MANOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) –...

Documentary Analysis – Methods, Applications and...

ANOVA (Analysis of variance) – Formulas, Types...

Graphical Methods – Types, Examples and Guide

What (Exactly) Is Discourse Analysis? A Plain-Language Explanation & Definition (With Examples)

By: Jenna Crosley (PhD). Expert Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Discourse analysis is one of the most popular qualitative analysis techniques we encounter at Grad Coach. If you’ve landed on this post, you’re probably interested in discourse analysis, but you’re not sure whether it’s the right fit for your project, or you don’t know where to start. If so, you’ve come to the right place.

Overview: Discourse Analysis Basics

In this post, we’ll explain in plain, straightforward language :

• What discourse analysis is
• When to use discourse analysis
• The main approaches to discourse analysis
• How to conduct discourse analysis

What is discourse analysis?

Let’s start with the word “discourse”.

In its simplest form, discourse is verbal or written communication between people that goes beyond a single sentence . Importantly, discourse is more than just language. The term “language” can include all forms of linguistic and symbolic units (even things such as road signs), and language studies can focus on the individual meanings of words. Discourse goes beyond this and looks at the overall meanings conveyed by language in context .  “Context” here refers to the social, cultural, political, and historical background of the discourse, and it is important to take this into account to understand underlying meanings expressed through language.

A popular way of viewing discourse is as language used in specific social contexts, and as such language serves as a means of prompting some form of social change or meeting some form of goal.

Now that we’ve defined discourse, let’s look at discourse analysis .

Discourse analysis uses the language presented in a corpus or body of data to draw meaning . This body of data could include a set of interviews or focus group discussion transcripts. While some forms of discourse analysis center in on the specifics of language (such as sounds or grammar), other forms focus on how this language is used to achieve its aims. We’ll dig deeper into these two above-mentioned approaches later.

As Wodak and Krzyżanowski (2008) put it: “discourse analysis provides a general framework to problem-oriented social research”. Basically, discourse analysis is used to conduct research on the use of language in context in a wide variety of social problems (i.e., issues in society that affect individuals negatively).

For example, discourse analysis could be used to assess how language is used to express differing viewpoints on financial inequality and would look at how the topic should or shouldn’t be addressed or resolved, and whether this so-called inequality is perceived as such by participants.

What makes discourse analysis unique is that it posits that social reality is socially constructed , or that our experience of the world is understood from a subjective standpoint. Discourse analysis goes beyond the literal meaning of words and languages

For example, people in countries that make use of a lot of censorship will likely have their knowledge, and thus views, limited by this, and will thus have a different subjective reality to those within countries with more lax laws on censorship.

When should you use discourse analysis?

There are many ways to analyze qualitative data (such as content analysis , narrative analysis , and thematic analysis ), so why should you choose discourse analysis? Well, as with all analysis methods, the nature of your research aims, objectives and research questions (i.e. the purpose of your research) will heavily influence the right choice of analysis method.

The purpose of discourse analysis is to investigate the functions of language (i.e., what language is used for) and how meaning is constructed in different contexts, which, to recap, include the social, cultural, political, and historical backgrounds of the discourse.

For example, if you were to study a politician’s speeches, you would need to situate these speeches in their context, which would involve looking at the politician’s background and views, the reasons for presenting the speech, the history or context of the audience, and the country’s social and political history (just to name a few – there are always multiple contextual factors).

Discourse analysis can also tell you a lot about power and power imbalances , including how this is developed and maintained, how this plays out in real life (for example, inequalities because of this power), and how language can be used to maintain it. For example, you could look at the way that someone with more power (for example, a CEO) speaks to someone with less power (for example, a lower-level employee).

Therefore, you may consider discourse analysis if you are researching:

• Some form of power or inequality (for example, how affluent individuals interact with those who are less wealthy
• How people communicate in a specific context (such as in a social situation with colleagues versus a board meeting)
• Ideology and how ideas (such as values and beliefs) are shared using language (like in political speeches)
• How communication is used to achieve social goals (such as maintaining a friendship or navigating conflict)

As you can see, discourse analysis can be a powerful tool for assessing social issues , as well as power and power imbalances . So, if your research aims and objectives are oriented around these types of issues, discourse analysis could be a good fit for you.

Discourse Analysis: The main approaches

There are two main approaches to discourse analysis. These are the language-in-use (also referred to as socially situated text and talk ) approaches and the socio-political approaches (most commonly Critical Discourse Analysis ). Let’s take a look at each of these.

Approach #1: Language-in-use

Language-in-use approaches focus on the finer details of language used within discourse, such as sentence structures (grammar) and phonology (sounds). This approach is very descriptive and is seldom seen outside of studies focusing on literature and/or linguistics.

Because of its formalist roots, language-in-use pays attention to different rules of communication, such as grammaticality (i.e., when something “sounds okay” to a native speaker of a language). Analyzing discourse through a language-in-use framework involves identifying key technicalities of language used in discourse and investigating how the features are used within a particular social context.

For example, English makes use of affixes (for example, “un” in “unbelievable”) and suffixes (“able” in “unbelievable”) but doesn’t typically make use of infixes (units that can be placed within other words to alter their meaning). However, an English speaker may say something along the lines of, “that’s un-flipping-believable”. From a language-in-use perspective, the infix “flipping” could be investigated by assessing how rare the phenomenon is in English, and then answering questions such as, “What role does the infix play?” or “What is the goal of using such an infix?”

Need a helping hand?

Approach #2: Socio-political

Socio-political approaches to discourse analysis look beyond the technicalities of language and instead focus on the influence that language has in social context , and vice versa. One of the main socio-political approaches is Critical Discourse Analysis , which focuses on power structures (for example, the power dynamic between a teacher and a student) and how discourse is influenced by society and culture. Critical Discourse Analysis is born out of Michel Foucault’s early work on power, which focuses on power structures through the analysis of normalized power .

Normalized power is ingrained and relatively allusive. It’s what makes us exist within society (and within the underlying norms of society, as accepted in a specific social context) and do the things that we need to do. Contrasted to this, a more obvious form of power is repressive power , which is power that is actively asserted.

Sounds a bit fluffy? Let’s look at an example.

Consider a situation where a teacher threatens a student with detention if they don’t stop speaking in class. This would be an example of repressive power (i.e. it was actively asserted).

Normalized power, on the other hand, is what makes us not want to talk in class . It’s the subtle clues we’re given from our environment that tell us how to behave, and this form of power is so normal to us that we don’t even realize that our beliefs, desires, and decisions are being shaped by it.

In the view of Critical Discourse Analysis, language is power and, if we want to understand power dynamics and structures in society, we must look to language for answers. In other words, analyzing the use of language can help us understand the social context, especially the power dynamics.

While the above-mentioned approaches are the two most popular approaches to discourse analysis, other forms of analysis exist. For example, ethnography-based discourse analysis and multimodal analysis. Ethnography-based discourse analysis aims to gain an insider understanding of culture , customs, and habits through participant observation (i.e. directly observing participants, rather than focusing on pre-existing texts).

On the other hand, multimodal analysis focuses on a variety of texts that are both verbal and nonverbal (such as a combination of political speeches and written press releases). So, if you’re considering using discourse analysis, familiarize yourself with the various approaches available so that you can make a well-informed decision.

How to “do” discourse analysis

As every study is different, it’s challenging to outline exactly what steps need to be taken to complete your research. However, the following steps can be used as a guideline if you choose to adopt discourse analysis for your research.

Step 1: Decide on your discourse analysis approach

The first step of the process is to decide on which approach you will take in terms. For example, the language in use approach or a socio-political approach such as critical discourse analysis. To do this, you need to consider your research aims, objectives and research questions . Of course, this means that you need to have these components clearly defined. If you’re still a bit uncertain about these, check out our video post covering topic development here.

While discourse analysis can be exploratory (as in, used to find out about a topic that hasn’t really been touched on yet), it is still vital to have a set of clearly defined research questions to guide your analysis. Without these, you may find that you lack direction when you get to your analysis. Since discourse analysis places such a focus on context, it is also vital that your research questions are linked to studying language within context.

Based on your research aims, objectives and research questions, you need to assess which discourse analysis would best suit your needs. Importantly, you  need to adopt an approach that aligns with your study’s purpose . So, think carefully about what you are investigating and what you want to achieve, and then consider the various options available within discourse analysis.

It’s vital to determine your discourse analysis approach from the get-go , so that you don’t waste time randomly analyzing your data without any specific plan.

Step 2: Design your collection method and gather your data

Once you’ve got determined your overarching approach, you can start looking at how to collect your data. Data in discourse analysis is drawn from different forms of “talk” and “text” , which means that it can consist of interviews , ethnographies, discussions, case studies, blog posts.  

The type of data you collect will largely depend on your research questions (and broader research aims and objectives). So, when you’re gathering your data, make sure that you keep in mind the “what”, “who” and “why” of your study, so that you don’t end up with a corpus full of irrelevant data. Discourse analysis can be very time-consuming, so you want to ensure that you’re not wasting time on information that doesn’t directly pertain to your research questions.

When considering potential collection methods, you should also consider the practicalities . What type of data can you access in reality? How many participants do you have access to and how much time do you have available to collect data and make sense of it? These are important factors, as you’ll run into problems if your chosen methods are impractical in light of your constraints.

Once you’ve determined your data collection method, you can get to work with the collection.

Step 3: Investigate the context

A key part of discourse analysis is context and understanding meaning in context. For this reason, it is vital that you thoroughly and systematically investigate the context of your discourse. Make sure that you can answer (at least the majority) of the following questions:

• What is the discourse?
• Why does the discourse exist? What is the purpose and what are the aims of the discourse?
• When did the discourse take place?
• Where did it happen?
• Who participated in the discourse? Who created it and who consumed it?
• What does the discourse say about society in general?
• How is meaning being conveyed in the context of the discourse?

Make sure that you include all aspects of the discourse context in your analysis to eliminate any confounding factors. For example, are there any social, political, or historical reasons as to why the discourse would exist as it does? What other factors could contribute to the existence of the discourse? Discourse can be influenced by many factors, so it is vital that you take as many of them into account as possible.

Once you’ve investigated the context of your data, you’ll have a much better idea of what you’re working with, and you’ll be far more familiar with your content. It’s then time to begin your analysis.

Step 4: Analyze your data

When performing a discourse analysis, you’ll need to look for themes and patterns .  To do this, you’ll start by looking at codes , which are specific topics within your data. You can find more information about the qualitative data coding process here.

Next, you’ll take these codes and identify themes. Themes are patterns of language (such as specific words or sentences) that pop up repeatedly in your data, and that can tell you something about the discourse. For example, if you’re wanting to know about women’s perspectives of living in a certain area, potential themes may be “safety” or “convenience”.

In discourse analysis, it is important to reach what is called data saturation . This refers to when you’ve investigated your topic and analyzed your data to the point where no new information can be found. To achieve this, you need to work your way through your data set multiple times, developing greater depth and insight each time. This can be quite time consuming and even a bit boring at times, but it’s essential.

Once you’ve reached the point of saturation, you should have an almost-complete analysis and you’re ready to move onto the next step – final review.

Step 5: Review your work

Hey, you’re nearly there. Good job! Now it’s time to review your work.

This final step requires you to return to your research questions and compile your answers to them, based on the analysis. Make sure that you can answer your research questions thoroughly, and also substantiate your responses with evidence from your data.

Usually, discourse analysis studies make use of appendices, which are referenced within your thesis or dissertation. This makes it easier for reviewers or markers to jump between your analysis (and findings) and your corpus (your evidence) so that it’s easier for them to assess your work.

When answering your research questions, make you should also revisit your research aims and objectives , and assess your answers against these. This process will help you zoom out a little and give you a bigger picture view. With your newfound insights from the analysis, you may find, for example, that it makes sense to expand the research question set a little to achieve a more comprehensive view of the topic.

Let’s recap…

In this article, we’ve covered quite a bit of ground. The key takeaways are:

• Discourse analysis is a qualitative analysis method used to draw meaning from language in context.
• You should consider using discourse analysis when you wish to analyze the functions and underlying meanings of language in context.
• The two overarching approaches to discourse analysis are language-in-use and socio-political approaches .
• The main steps involved in undertaking discourse analysis are deciding on your analysis approach (based on your research questions), choosing a data collection method, collecting your data, investigating the context of your data, analyzing your data, and reviewing your work.

If you have any questions about discourse analysis, feel free to leave a comment below. If you’d like 1-on-1 help with your analysis, book an initial consultation with a friendly Grad Coach to see how we can help.

Psst… there’s more (for free)

This post is part of our dissertation mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project. 

You Might Also Like:

30 Comments

This was really helpful to me

I would like to know the importance of discourse analysis analysis to academic writing

In academic writing coherence and cohesion are very important. DA will assist us to decide cohesiveness of the continuum of discourse that are used in it. We can judge it well.

Thank you so much for this piece, can you please direct how I can use Discourse Analysis to investigate politics of ethnicity in a particular society

Fantastically helpful! Could you write on how discourse analysis can be done using computer aided technique? Many thanks

I would like to know if I can use discourse analysis to research on electoral integrity deviation and when election are considered free & fair

I also to know the importance of discourse analysis and it’s purpose and characteristics

Thanks, we are doing discourse analysis as a subject this year and this helped a lot!

Please can you help explain and answer this question? With illustrations,Hymes’ Acronym SPEAKING, as a feature of Discourse Analysis.

What are the three objectives of discourse analysis especially on the topic how people communicate between doctor and patient

Very useful Thank you for your work and information

thank you so much , I wanna know more about discourse analysis tools , such as , latent analysis , active powers analysis, proof paths analysis, image analysis, rhetorical analysis, propositions analysis, and so on, I wish I can get references about it , thanks in advance

Its beyond my expectations. It made me clear everything which I was struggling since last 4 months. 👏 👏 👏 👏

Thank you so much … It is clear and helpful

Thanks for sharing this material. My question is related to the online newspaper articles on COVID -19 pandemic the way this new normal is constructed as a social reality. How discourse analysis is an appropriate approach to examine theese articles?

This very helpful and interesting information

This was incredible! And massively helpful.

I’m seeking further assistance if you don’t mind.

Found it worth consuming!

What are the four types of discourse analysis?

very helpful. And I’d like to know more about Ethnography-based discourse analysis as I’m studying arts and humanities, I’d like to know how can I use it in my study.

Amazing info. Very happy to read this helpful piece of documentation. Thank you.

is discourse analysis can take data from medias like TV, Radio…?

I need to know what is general discourse analysis

Direct to the point, simple and deep explanation. this is helpful indeed.

Thank you so much was really helpful

really impressive

Thank you very much, for the clear explanations and examples.

It is really awesome. Anybody within just in 5 minutes understand this critical topic so easily. Thank you so much.

Thank you for enriching my knowledge on Discourse Analysis . Very helpful thanks again

This was extremely helpful. I feel less anxious now. Thank you so much.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

The Palgrave Handbook of Psychosocial Studies pp 1–22 Cite as

Narrative and Discursive Research

• Lisa Saville Young 4  
• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 29 May 2022

131 Accesses

This chapter provides a description of the employment of narrative and discursive research in psychosocial studies, with a specific focus on the use of psychoanalysis alongside these qualitative research approaches. In describing this work, I identify a set of problems that have developed in this transdisciplinary space and discuss how these have both enriched and challenged the field of psychosocial studies. Firstly, there is the problem of which psychoanalysis to employ in our research practices, with different schools of psychoanalysis leading to different approaches to collecting and analyzing data. Secondly, there are ethical dilemmas that result from employing concepts developed in a clinical context for therapeutic purposes, in a research context for the purposes of producing knowledge. Thirdly, there is the problem of how to ‘pin down’ the slippery concept of the unconscious in a way that is still considered reliable and valid research practice. Fourthly, there is the danger of losing the disruptive power of psychosocial studies, as an emphasis on the social context gives way to a more relational focus. In the second half of the chapter, I describe my own psychosocial approach to an interview extract demonstrating one way of employing psychoanalysis alongside discursive research, and one way of negotiating the problems already described. Central to my approach is the employment of reflexivity to ensure that the researcher is also understood to be a co-constructor of the data, and just as implicated in its analysis as the participant. I conclude by pointing to areas requiring further development, imagining the horizons of narrative and discursive research within psychosocial studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Psychoanalysis is not the only theoretical and methodological framework that can be employed alongside narrative and discursive work to make up a psychosocial approach; however, it is the focus of this chapter given the extent to which it has saturated the psychosocial space (Frosh, 2016 ).

While I focus on possible harms to participants in this chapter, Bowker ( 2011 ) has written about the benefits of participating in psychosocial interviews for participants, a dimension of research ethics that should not be overlooked.

Given space constraints, this example does not do as much grounding in the actual text of the interview as I normally advocate; as such I describe it as a broad sketch rather than an analysis.

The amaXhosa is an Nguni ethic group in the Eastern and Western Cape of South Africa who speak isiXhosa, an indigenous language.

Interviewer’s words are indicated through square brackets [ ]. Round brackets and full stops indicate a short pause (…).

Ahmed, S. (2004). The cultural politics of emotion . Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Avdi, E., & Georgaca, E. (2018). Researching the discursive construction of subjectivity in psychotherapy. In O. Smoliak & T. Strong (Eds.), Therapy as discourse (pp. 45–69). Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Billig, M. (1997). The dialogic unconscious: Psychoanalysis, discursive psychology and the nature of repression. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36 , 139–159.

Article   Google Scholar  

Billig, M. (2006). Lacan’s misuse of psychology: Evidence, rhetoric and the mirror stage. Theory, Culture & Society, 23 (4), 1–26.

Bowker, M. H. (2011). What is the participant’s good? A neglected ethical question in psycho-social research. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 16 , 324–332.

Bradbury, P., & Day Sclater, S. (2000). Conclusion. In M. Andrews, S. Day Sclater, C. Squire, & A. Treacher (Eds.), Lines of narrative: Psychosocial perspectives (pp. 193–198). Routledge.

Cromby, J. (2012). Feeling the way: Qualitative clinical research and the affective turn. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 9 (1), 88–98.

Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20 , 43–63.

Day Sclater, S. (1999). Divorce: A psychosocial study . Ashgate.

Day Sclater, S. (2000). Narrative and discourse: Introduction. In M. Andrews, S. D. Sclater, C. Squire, & A. Treacher (Eds.), Lines of narrative: Psychosocial perspectives (pp. 131–135). Routledge.

De Fina, A., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2019). The handbook of narrative analysis . Wiley.

Edley, N. (2001). Analysing masculinity: Interpretative repertoires, ideological dilemmas and subject positions. Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis, 189 , 228.

Edwards, D. (2007). Managing subjectivity in talk. In A. Hepburn & S. Wiggins (Eds.), Discursive research in practice: New approaches to psychology and interaction (pp. 31–49). Cambridge University Press.

Emerson, P., & Frosh, S. (2004). Critical narrative analysis in psychology: A guide to practice . Palgrave.

Book   Google Scholar  

Fink, B. (2004). Lacan to the letter: Reading Ecrits closely . University of Minnesota Press.

Finlay, L. (2002). ‘Outing’ the researcher: Provenance, process and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12 , 531–545.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Frosh, S. (2007). Disintegrating qualitative research. Theory and Psychology, 17 (5), 635–653.

Frosh, S. (2009). Where did class go? Psychoanalysis and social identities. Sitegeist: A Journal of Psychoanalysis and Philosophy, 3 , 99–116.

Frosh, S. (2013). Keeping cool in thinking and psychotherapy. In C. Burck, S. Barratt, & E. Kavner (Eds.), Positions and polarities in contemporary systemic practice: The legacy of David Campbell (The systemic thinking and practice series) (pp. 15–26). Karnac Books.

Frosh, S. (2014). The nature of the psychosocial: Debates from studies in the psychosocial. Journal of Psycho-Social studies, 8 (1), 159–169.

Frosh, S. (2016). Towards a psychosocial psychoanalysis. American Imago, 73 (4), 469–482.

Frosh, S., & Baraitser, L. (2008). Psychoanalysis and psychosocial studies. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 13 (4), 346–365.

Frosh, S., & Saville Young, L. (2010). The psychoanalytic psychosocial. In J. Mason & A. Dale (Eds.), Social researching: New perspectives on method (pp. 49–61). Sage.

Frosh, S., & Saville Young, L. (2017). Psychoanalytic approaches to qualitative psychology. In W. Stainton Rogers & C. Willig (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 124–140). Sage.

Frosh, S., Phoenix, A., & Pattman, R. (2002). Young masculinities: Understanding boys in contemporary society . Palgrave.

Frosh, S. & Saville Young, L. (2017). Psychoanalytic approaches to qualitative research. In W. Stainton Rogers & C. Willig (Eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology (Second edition). London: Sage.

Gee, J. P. (1991). A linguistic approach to narrative. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1 (1), 15–39.

Gee, J. P. (2014). How to do discourse analysis: A tool kit (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Gee, J. P., & Handford, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis . Routledge.

Georgaca, E., & Avdi, E. (2009). Evaluating the talking cure: The contribution of narrative, discourse, and conversation analysis to psychotherapy assessment. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 6 (3), 233–247.

Greco, M., & Stenner, P. (Eds.). (2008). Emotions: A social science reader . Routledge.

Harris, P. (2019). Uneasy bedfellows? Fusing participatory and psychosocial principles in research with youth workers and young people. Journal of Psychosocial Studies, 12 (3), 245–257.

Haselau, T. L. (2021). Defended subjectivity in service-learning: A psychosocial analysis of students’ talk about service-learning in psychology (Doctoral dissertation). Rhodes University.

Hoggett, P. (2008). What’s in a hypen? Reconstructing psychosocial studies. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 13 (4), 379–384.

Hollway, W. (2015). Knowing mothers: Researching maternal identity change . Palgrave Macmillan.

Hollway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing qualitative research differently: Free association, narrative and the interview method . Sage.

Hollway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2005a). But why did Vince get sick?: A reply to spears and Wetherell. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44 (2), 175–180.

Hollway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2005b). Panic and perjury: A psycho-social exploration of agency. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44 (2), 147–163.

Hollway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2013). Doing qualitative research differently: A psychosocial approach (2nd ed.). Sage.

Holmes, J. (2017). Reverie-informed research interviewing. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 98 , 709–728.

Hook, D. (2008). Absolute other: Lacan’s ‘other’ as adjunct to critical social psychological analysis? Personality and Social Psychology Compass, 2 (1), 51–73.

Kennedy, B., & Saville Young, L. (2019). Talk of whiteness: A psychosocial analysis of constructions of race amongst white novice clinical psychologists in South Africa. Psycho-analytic Psychotherapy in South Africa, 27 , 9–33.

Kinahan Sweeney, S., & Saville Young, L. (2021). The ‘good’ mother and the thriving, surviving baby’s body: A psychosocial analysis. Psycho-Analytic Psychotherapy in South Africa, 29 (1), 33–69.

Lacan, J. (1960). The subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire. In J. Lacan, Ecrits: The first complete edition in English (translated by B. Fink in collaboration with H. Fink and R. Grigg). Norton, 2006.

Lapping, C. (2013). Which subject, whose desire? The constitution of subjectivity and the articulation of desire in the practice of research. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 18 (4), 368–385.

Lapping, C. (2016). Reflexivity and fantasy: Surprising encounters from interpretation to interruption. Qualitative Inquiry, 22 (9), 718–724.

Lau, U., Durrheim, K., & Saville Young, L. (2021). Place detachment and the psychology of nonbelonging. In C. Raymond, L. Manzo, D. Williams, T. von Wirth, & A. Di Masso (Eds.), Changing senses of place: Navigating global challenges (pp. 103–115). Cambridge University Press.

Marks, S., & Mönich-Marks, H. (2003). The analysis of counter-Transference reactions is a means to discern latent interview-contents. Forum: Qualitative Social Research , 4 (2). http://qualitativeresearch.net/fqs-texte/2-03/2-03marks-e.pdf

Mhlongo, N. (2019). Black tax: Burden or ubuntu? Jonathan Ball Publishers.

Murray, A. J., & Durrheim, K. (2021). Maintaining the status quo through repressed silences: The case of paid domestic labour in post-apartheid South Africa. Sociology, 55 (2), 283–299.

Ndabula, Y. (2017). Sistering and sexual socialisation: A psychosocial study of Xhosa women’s ‘sex and reproduction talk’ with their sisters (Masters dissertation). Rhodes University.

Parker, I. (2015). Walls and holes in psychosocial research: From psychoanalysis to critique. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12 (1), 77–82.

Parker, I., & Pavón-Cuéllar, D. (Eds.). (2014). Lacan, discourse, event: New psychoanalytic approaches to textual indeterminacy . Routledge.

Richards, B., Jones, D. W., Yates, C., Price, H., & Day Sclater, S. (2009). Conclusions: Psychosocial studies – A therapeutic project? In S. Day Sclater, D. W. Jones, H. Price, & C. Yates (Eds.), Emotion: New psychosocial perspectives (pp. 242–254). Palgrave Macmillan.

Riessman, C. K. (2003). Performing identities in illness narratives. Masculinity and multiple sclerosis. Qualitative Research, 3 , 5–33.

Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences . Sage.

Saville Young, L. (2009). Not knowing: Towards an ethics for employing psychoanalysis in psychosocial research. Psycho-Analytic Psychotherapy in South Africa, 17 , 1–26.

Saville Young, L. (2011). Research entanglements, race and recognisability: A psychosocial reading of interview encounters in (post-) colonial, (post-) apartheid South Africa. Qualitative Inquiry, 17 (1), 45–55.

Saville Young, L. (2013). Becoming other to oneself: Misreading the researcher through Lacanian discourse analysis. In I. Parker & D. Pavon-Cuellar (Eds.), Lacan, discourse, event: New analyses of textual indeterminacy (pp. 279–290). Routledge.

Saville Young, L., & Berry, J. (2016). Slipping and holding minds: A psychosocial analysis of maternal subjectivity in relation to childhood disability. African Journal of Disability, 5 (1), a266. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v5i1.266

Saville Young, L., & Frosh, S. (2018). Psychoanalysis in narrative research. In K. Stamenova & R. D. Hinshelwood (Eds.), Methods of research into the unconscious: Applying psychoanalytic ideas to social sciences (pp. 199–210). Routledge.

Saville Young, L., & Jearey-Graham, N. (2015). “They’re gonna come and corrupt our children”: A psychosocial analysis of two South Africans’ xenophobic talk. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 20 , 395–413.

Saville Young, L., Moodley, D., & Macleod, C. (2018). Feminine sexual desire and shame in the classroom: An educator’s constructions of and investments in sexuality education. Sex Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2018.1511974

Stenner, P., & Taylor, D. (2008). Psychosocial welfare: Reflections on an emerging field. Critical Social Policy, 28 (4), 415–437.

Stern, D. B. (2018). The infinity of the unsaid: Unformulated experience, language, and the nonverbal . Routledge.

Taylor, S. (2015). Discursive and psychosocial? Theorising a complex contemporary subject. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12 (1), 8–21.

Urwin, C. (2011). Infant observation meets social sicence. Infant Observation, 14 (3), 341–344.

Walkerdine, V., Lucey, H., & Melody, J. (2001). Growing Up Girl: Psychosocial explorations of gender and class . Palgrave.

Wengraf, T. (2018). Researching dated, situated, defended and deciding/evolving subjectivities by biographic-narrative interview: Psychoanalysis, the psycho-societal unconscious, and biographic-narrative interview method and interpretation. In K. Stamenova & R. D. Hinshelwood (Eds.), Methods of research into the unconscious: Applying psychoanalytic ideas to social sciences (pp. 211–238). Routledge.

Wetherell, M. (2005). Commentary: Unconscious conflict or everyday accountability? British Journal of Social Psychology, 44 (2), 169–173.

Wetherell, M. (2012). Affect and emotion: A new social science understanding . Sage.

Wetherell, M. (2014). Affect and banal nationalism: A practical dialogic approach to emotion. In C. Antaki & S. Condor (Eds.), Rhetoric, ideology and social psychology: Essays in honour of Michael Billig . Routledge.

Wetherell, M. (2015). Trends in the turn to affect: A social psychological critique. Body & Society, 21 (2), 139–166.

Woodward, K. (2015). Psychosocial studies: An introduction . Routledge.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa

Lisa Saville Young

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Saville Young .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Psychosocial Studies, Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK

Stephen Frosh

Cass School of Education and Communities, University of East London, London, UK

Marita Vyrgioti

Department of Psychosocial and Psychoanalytic Studies, University of Essex, Colchester, UK

Julie Walsh

Section Editor information

Birkbeck College, University of London, London, UK

Cass School of Education and Communities, University of East London, London, United Kingdom

Department of Psychosocial and Psychoanalytic Studies, University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Young, L.S. (2022). Narrative and Discursive Research. In: Frosh, S., Vyrgioti, M., Walsh, J. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Psychosocial Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61510-9_27-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61510-9_27-1

Received : 26 November 2021

Accepted : 05 December 2021

Published : 29 May 2022

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-61510-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-61510-9

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Discourse analysis: what is it and why is it relevant to family practice?

This paper aims to illustrate what discourse analysis is and how it can contribute to our understanding of family practice. Firstly, we describe what ‘discourse analysis’ is, mapping the discourse analysis terrain by discussing four studies relevant to primary care to illustrate different methodological approaches and key concepts. We then address the practicalities of how to actually do discourse analysis, providing readers with a worked example using one particular approach. Thirdly, we touch on some common debates about discursive research. We conclude by advocating that researchers and practitioners take up the challenge of understanding, utilizing and extending the field of discourse studies within family practice.

Introduction

Discourse analysis is gradually becoming more established in family practice. Using rigorous methods and techniques, discourse analysis can offer a sophisticated insight into the complex world of family practice. But what do we actually mean when we talk about ‘discourse analysis’ and how is it done? To answer this question, the first section of this paper focuses on some basic theoretical ideas and concepts, drawing on studies relevant to primary care to provide readers with an understanding of the features of discourse analysis and the different approaches available. In the second part of this paper, we explore how to do discourse analysis (using data from a recent study in family practice) and consider common debates. We conclude by showing how discursive studies might add a ‘new’ methodological dimension to family practice research.

What is discourse analysis?

Discourse analysis is the study of social life, understood through analysis of language in its widest sense (including face-to-face talk, non-verbal interaction, images, symbols and documents). 1 It offers ways of investigating meaning, whether in conversation or in culture. 2 Discourse analytic studies encompass a broad range of theories, topics and analytic approaches for explaining language in use. They ask ‘What is social life like?’ and ‘What are the implications for individuals and/or wider society?’

Approaches to discourse analysis

To help explain what discourse analysis is we now describe four discourse studies relevant to family practice which range from micro-level study of face-to-face talk through to macro-level study of institutions in society (see Table 1 ). We have chosen these four studies as they allow us to demonstrate some of the diversity within discourse analysis; however, there is overlap between studies in terms of underlying theories and approaches.

Examples of discourse analytic research relevant to family practice

Approaches to discourse analysis are not easy to pin down. Different studies focus on different types of data (including spoken and written) and different types of discourse: for instance, Study 1 in Table 1 explores culturally specific styles of communication in general practice consultations 3 ; Study 2 explores the ways that topics can be meaningfully talked about among women with breast cancer 4 and Studies 3 and 4 uncover taken-for-granted ideas and ideologies in society in interviews with health professionals and in research policy documents. 5 , 6 Discourse analytic approaches are influenced by a wide range of disciplines including anthropology, linguistics, cultural studies, gender studies, social psychology and philosophy. 1 To gain a more in-depth appreciation of discourse analysis, we encourage readers to access the papers in Table 1 .

Micro-level studies—such as the sociolinguistic discourse analysis in Study 1—involve the detailed study of language in use. They tend to be concerned with the techniques and competencies involved in successful and unsuccessful conversation, allowing researchers to build up a model of social life from an empirical understanding of actual linguistic events. 7 Micro-level approaches owe a great deal to conversation analysis that provides a conceptual framework for systematically analysing face-to-face talk. 8 , 9 The starting point for micro-level studies is the participant's perspective, allowing researchers to appreciate the cultural and communicative patterns which inform his or her behaviour and perceptions. 10 Analysis explores how interactions are organized moment by moment through subtle yet taken-for-granted processes. For instance, Study 1 looks at patterns of misunderstandings in consultations between doctors and patients with limited English, identifying misunderstandings resulting from culturally specific styles of communication (such as how personal or impersonal to be, how direct to be in self-presentation or how literally to interpret a question).

Meso-level studies—such as the discursive psychology approaches in Studies 2 and 3—may also look at face-to-face talk. However, there is less emphasis on micro-level interaction and more on the connections with broader social and cultural contexts. The starting point for such studies is that discourse guides certain ways of talking about a topic, defining ‘acceptable’ ways to talk, write or conduct oneself and that this can serve a range of social functions. 11 For example, Study 2 looks at how women with breast cancer talk about how they cope with their illness. Analysis reveals how ‘thinking positive’ is a powerful discourse, governing socially acceptable ways of thinking and talking about coping with cancer and placing a moral obligation on women with breast cancer to conduct themselves in particular ways. Talk about thinking positive serves a variety of social functions: it is used as a device to move conversation on in awkward moments (e.g. following talk about illness or death) and also acts to bind the group together through establishing a shared identity as breast cancer sufferers.

Discursive studies may take a critical perspective, for instance, exploring how different groups achieve and maintain their status through their control of conversational encounters and ‘systems of knowledge’. For example, Study 3 looks at how health professionals talk about electro-convulsive therapy (ECT). There are variations in the diagnostic labelling of people with mental distress and variations in decisions to treat with ECT. Analysis of health professionals’ talk about psychiatric treatments draws attention to the ways in which it creates a boundary between ‘severely mentally ill’ and ‘not severely mentally ill’. Health professionals’ discourse about the severely mentally ill acts to rationalize particular courses of action (i.e. ECT) and restricts choices about other possible interventions (e.g. social support or psychotherapy).

Macro-level approaches—such as the Foucauldian approach adopted by Study 4—tend to involve the study of language and ideology in society. 2 The starting point is a concern with the role of power and knowledge in society, identifying patterns of language, demonstrating how they constitute aspects of society and establishing how and why the language available to us sets limits on what it is (and is not) possible to think, say and do. 12 Analytic approaches can ‘deconstruct’ or unravel taken-for-granted assumptions, understand what these assumptions might mean for individuals and wider society and explore possible alternatives to accepted ways of doing things. 13 , 14 For instance, Study 4 looks at the discourses that have dominated research policy and how these have shaped primary care research. Analysis reveals how the UK economy has been influenced by the drive towards a ‘knowledge-based economy’, emphasizing the production and use of information as a means of generating national wealth. For primary care, this has meant that knowledge which has commercial value (such as genetic discovery) has been privileged over knowledge that has other value (such as understanding patients’ perspectives).

What do these approaches to discourse analysis have in common?

Some discourse studies tend to draw on more than one approach (for instance, Study 3 draws on discursive psychology as well as a Foucauldian approach). Despite the diversity of origin and definition, discursive approaches share several conceptions about social life.

Firstly, ‘language and interaction are best understood in context’. Insightful interpretation of data involves understanding contexts such as local circumstances (e.g. setting, participants) and/or wider discourses that shape language and interaction. For instance, Study 4 explored documents from 1972 to 2005, helping to illustrate that research discoveries do not simply ‘happen’, but are products of history and the shift towards a knowledge-based economy.

Secondly, ‘social reality is socially constructed’. This is a concept which is difficult to grasp because it challenges a traditional, rationalist view of an objectively discoverable social world, instead acknowledging that social worlds are subjectively understood and experienced. Constructivists argue that all knowledge—including taken-for-granted, common sense knowledge—is derived from and maintained by social interactions. 15 For instance, a category like severely mentally ill which may appear to be natural and obvious is actually an artefact of a particular culture or society (see above).

Thirdly, discursive research ‘looks beyond the literal meanings of language’. For example, in Study 2, cancer sufferers may or may not ‘really’ ‘think positive’: discourse analysis is not interested in whether beliefs and attitudes are ‘true’, but is interested instead in the social functions of talk (for example, the way that talking about thinking positive bonds members of a group or moves discussions on from difficult topics). Meaning therefore depends upon the context of an interaction, and in Study 3 thinking positive has many different meanings.

One approach to doing discourse analysis: a worked example from a doctor–patient consultation

There is no set formula for how to do discourse analysis. However, as with other qualitative approaches, there are a number of practical steps that can guide researchers (see Box 1 ). Background reading is an essential part of the research process, helping to refine research questions and understand how theoretical ideas and approaches might be relevant to the research. 19 The focus of the research then guides the kind of data that will be gathered. Data may be drawn from a number of sources in order to preserve a sense of the contexts in which things occurred. Data may be ‘researcher generated’ (such as interviews or field notes) or ‘naturally occurring’ (such as published documents or recordings of conversations).

B OX 1. Practical steps in discourse analysis

• Start with a general problem area.
• Undertake background reading about discourse analysis and about the topic you want to study (both within and outside of the health/medical field).
• Seek advice and/or support from a social scientist with experience of discourse analysis (if this is not your area of expertise).
• Begin to focus your research questions, continuing to review and refine it/them throughout.
• Decide on the type of data you wish to study and collect data.
• Familiarize yourself with the data through repeated reading, watching and/or listening, asking questions of the data (such as ‘What is the context for this interaction?’, ‘What is happening and why?’) and begin to note interesting features.
• Transcribe any spoken data you might have collected, paying close attention to detail.
• Index for analytic themes and discursive features. Look for patterns.
• Make analytic notes as you go along, using paper and pen and/or a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software package (such as NVIVO or Atlas.ti).
• Test intuitive hunches against the data, being critical and looking for counter examples.
• Discuss your emerging analysis with colleagues, especially those from other disciplines.
• Start writing preliminary analyses, moving between writing, reading and analysing.

Adapted from 16 , 17 and 18

Discourse analytic studies often start with a general problem area, developing more focused research questions as the research progresses so that researchers can remain genuinely open to new insights. To demonstrate this process, we draw on a study (undertaken by JB) exploring consultations for coughs and colds in family practice: we describe the formulation of the research question and present a worked example of analysis which exemplifies a discursive psychology approach (similar to Study 2). As we describe above, this is only one of many approaches to thinking about and analysing discourse.

Existing literature suggests that consulting with minor illness may be seen as inappropriate by health professionals. 20 To explore potential misunderstandings and conflicts in consultations for coughs and colds, 33 consultations between doctors and patients with upper respiratory tract infections were videorecorded, with doctors and patients interviewed afterwards. In the process of becoming familiar with the data, it became apparent that patients gave surprisingly long and involved accounts of apparently ‘minor’ symptoms, which raised the question: ‘what purpose do these accounts serve?’ The literature suggests that patients need to persuade doctors that their visit is appropriate, 7 particularly if the problem might be labelled by the doctor as minor. Analysis therefore paid particular attention to the use of persuasive language (i.e. rhetorical structure). 21 To demonstrate how this might be done, we now analyse part of one patient's account of their symptoms (see Box 2 ).

B OX 2. Data extract

The following excerpt is taken from near the beginning of a consultation between a GP and a 30-year-old man (Mr K) with respiratory symptoms:

• 13 right em (..) I started last Wednesday (…) with a little
• 14 (.) it wasn't sore throat [ repeated stroking hand motions over throat and face ]
• 15 (.) it wasn't- (..) very dry em throat and all my em nasal
• 16 (…) channels or whatever you call it in my ears
• 17 (.) very itchy all around (..) [ wavy finger motion near ears ]
• 18 em that was on Wednesday evening
• 19 .hhh on Thursday evening (.) seemed like em you know everything was fine
• 20 (..) nothing at all (.) but then on Friday- (.)
• 21 er (.) I made an appointment on Thursday morning just in case and they gave me
• 22 (.) today (.) of course
• 23 .hh em on Friday (..) it came back (..) unexpectedly em (..) massively (.) like em
• 24 (.) my sore (..) my throat was really really sore and my ears and etcetera (.)
• 25 .hh I left work em (.) in the evening (.) em I went home (.) I had a fever (.)
• 26 and that night was horrendous and Saturday was exactly the same (.)
• 27 I (.) could barely swallow

This transcript includes detail such as pauses, and some body conduct, but not the minute detail of how things were said and body conduct etc. 17

(.) represents pauses of a tenth of a second.

.hhh represents an in-breath.

[ italicized ] represents notes about body conduct.

We could approach the data in Box 2 from a number of different perspectives. Reading the passage as a ‘medical history’, the data can be summarized in just one line (six days of sore throat, itchy respiratory passages, three days of fever), with most of the rest of the account deemed largely irrelevant. However, there are dimensions of social interaction going on apart from ‘giving a medical history’.

Discourse analysis involves looking beyond the literal meaning of language, understanding the context in which social interaction takes place and exploring what was said, when and why. Mr K gives specific details of what happened and when: the illness seemed to start innocuously on Wednesday (six days before his appointment) with a dry throat and itchy ‘nasal channels’ (lines 13–18). Then, on Thursday Mr K's symptoms seemed better (lines 19–20). In lines 23–25, he explains that the symptoms recurred ‘massively’ and ‘unexpectedly’ while he was at work. On the face of it, the detail about initial mild symptoms seem fairly irrelevant. However, discourse analysis allows exploration of the function that it serves: it suggests that Mr K had not overreacted to his symptoms, had not prematurely adopted a sick role and was behaving in a socially responsible way.

Mr K creates a persuasive account of his illness in a number of ways. 21 For instance, he uses a three part list (a rhetorical device that captures attention), referring to (i) ‘really really sore throat’, (ii) ‘my ears’ and (iii) ‘etcetera’ (line 24). He also provides specific detail about events on different days of the week that makes his account more believable. He uses several extreme case formulations which are designed to be dramatic and persuasive—for example, ‘it came back massively’, ‘really really sore throat’, ‘horrendous night’ and ‘barely swallow’—which construct his illness as more severe than a mundane sore throat. The dramatic contrast between the initial mild symptoms and later severe symptoms is also persuasive in design. Mr K accompanies his account with hand gestures: repeated stroking motions over his throat and face while describing sore throat symptoms (line 14) and finger motion to convey itchiness (line 17) which help to demonstrate to the doctor an illness which is not visible.

In summary, Mr K does considerable rhetorical work which constructs his illness as worthy of attention and himself as not to blame, pre-empting any suggestion that consulting with minor respiratory symptoms is not appropriate. Awareness of this dimension of the social interaction (i.e. patients’ ‘hidden agendas’ about legitimacy) could help doctors and patients to avoid unintended loss of face and/or conflict.

Some debates about discursive research

Is discourse analysis just subjective opinion.

A common concern about discourse analysis is that study findings represent nothing more than researchers’ opinions. For instance, in the worked example above, how can we know for sure that Mr K has an unstated agenda about the legitimacy of his visit? This interpretation is not arbitrary but is justified by reference to the data and supported by ‘evidence’ from other sources (for example, literature about ‘inappropriate’ use of primary care, the rhetorical structure of other consultations and doctors’ and patients’ concerns in interviews). Discourse analysts see research findings as socially constructed, for example, products of historical, geographical, economic and other contexts, and influenced by the researchers themselves 22 (e.g. disciplinary background, age, gender, ethnicity and so on). Discursive ‘findings’ are therefore seen as rigorously produced interpretations rather than ‘discoveries’. 23 Providing detail about study settings, participants and methodologies allows readers to judge credibility and plausibility of findings. 19 As is the case for other qualitative approaches, discursive findings are judged for the insights they can offer and are theoretically rather than statistically applicable to other situations. 19

Can discursive approaches complement other methods?

Whether discursive methods can truly complement other approaches depends upon the methodological assumptions which underpin the research. 24 Different approaches may have competing assumptions about the nature of data, what position the researcher holds in relation to the research participants, how data can be analysed, what conclusions can be drawn, how certain knowledge can be and how findings can be applied. Researchers from different traditions may be able to compromise to accommodate different ways of viewing the world. For example, in a study investigating ethnic minority students’ performance in exams, initial quantitative work describes the proportion of ethnic minority students failing final medical exams and subsequent discursive work then explores how and why this happens. 25

In contrast, there are some research approaches which are incompatible with the conceptions underpinning discursive research. For example, a popular tool in health-related research is the attitude survey: the underlying assumptions of such surveys are problematic to the discourse analyst because concepts such as ‘satisfaction’ do not have a fixed, universal meaning and experiences are complex. Surveys fail to capture the context in which things are said: although the same questions are asked of all respondents, they will be interpreted in unique ways by different people. 1

How is discourse analysis relevant to family practice?

Discourse analysis focuses on interaction, looking beyond the literal meaning of language. It lends itself to studying the complexities of day-to-day family practice, helping to unpick taken-for-granted (and often revered) ideas and practices. Discourse analysis adds a new methodological dimension to family practice research by drawing on theories and approaches from a range of disciplines, typically from outside medicine. Like other qualitative approaches, discourse analysis therefore brings a different lens through which we can potentially add to and deepen our understanding. Findings often have practical implications for family practice: for example, Study 1 identified how and why misunderstandings occur in patient–practitioner communication and resulted in a training video for health professionals and Study 3 informed the development of empowerment strategies to help patients to be more involved in decisions about their mental health care.

Our paper has explained the what, how and why of discourse analysis: we advocate that those allied to family practice take up the challenge of understanding, utilizing and extending the field of discourse studies within family practice.

Declaration

Funding: This work was supported by an interdisciplinary postdoctoral award from the Economic and Social Research and Medical Research Councils to SS and a Primary Care Researcher Development Award from the Department of Health to JB.

Ethical approval: None.

Conflicts of interest: None.

Acknowledgments

The data extract was taken from JB's PhD Thesis entitled ‘Doctor-patient communication in consultations for upper respiratory tract infections’, approved by the East London and City Ethical Committee. Our thanks go to a number of reviewers whose comments have helped to shape our paper.

• Faculty & Staff
• Prospective Students
• Agriculture and Food / Food Security
• Clean Energy
• Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
• CSR / Circular Economy / Business-Environment
• Economics / Policy / Law
• Environmental Consulting
• Environmental Education
• Environmental Science
• Environmental Think Tanks
• Entrepreneurship and Innovation
• Equity and Justice
• Forest Management and Science
• GIS / Remote Sensing
• International Development and Conservation
• Natural Resource Conservation / Ecology / Wildlife
• Urban and Regional Planning
• U.S. Federal, State, and Local Government Careers
• Water Resources Management
• Race, Justice, and Equity in the Workplace
• International Student Career Resources
• LGBTQ+ Career Resources
• Disability Career Resources
• Create a Resume, CV or Cover Letter
• Expand Your Network
• Explore Your Skills and Interests
• Job Offer Negotiations
• Prepare for an Interview
• Remote Work Skills
• PhD and Post Doc Resources
• Job Market Research
• Search for a Job / Internship
• Transferable Skills
• All Ivy Environmental & Sustainable Development Fair
• All News & Advice
• Employment Data
• Summer Experiences Data

10 Behavioral Interview Questions (With Sample Answers)

• Share This: Share 10 Behavioral Interview Questions (With Sample Answers) on Facebook Share 10 Behavioral Interview Questions (With Sample Answers) on LinkedIn Share 10 Behavioral Interview Questions (With Sample Answers) on X

Are you working on your interview preparation and presence? Knowing the types of questions to expect is a cornerstone of confidence building, and Indeed.com’s online Career Guide is a great resource for a range of job search skills information.

This article includes sample behavioral interview questions and answers to help demystify this interview staple.

During a job interview, employers may ask behavioral interview questions to assess how well you handled specific situations in the past and determine your likely behavior in similar situations. Your past performance can offer the hiring manager insight into your competence level. Reviewing answers to typical behavioral interview questions may help you prepare your own responses.