When doing discourse research, I often feel that the findings based on discourse analysis is not as “important” as those in social science studies (for example, political science). In most cases, the findings are limited to the discourse pattens of the argument which was already common understanding in some social science disciplines. So what can we do to make a difference?
If your specific aim is understanding then stop asking for meaning!
The increasing trend towards using statistical analyses in discourse studies will lead people to view the field as more important IMO.
Discourse analysis is an umbrella term for a family of different interdisciplinary methods. Simply put, it's a useful tool. I'm convinced that the "seriousness" of results depends on research questions and objectives. Ensure that your study addresses issues that are relevant and important in your field.
Moreover, consider incorporating multimodal analysis, which includes the study of visual and auditory elements of discourse alongside written or spoken language. This can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the discourse's impact. If possible, conduct longitudinal studies to track changes in discourse patterns over time. This can provide insights into how discourse shapes or reflects social and political developments.
Finally, in the title you refer to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). The "critical" aspect of CDA signifies its aim to uncover and critique hidden power relations, ideologies, and social inequalities within discourse. It goes beyond surface-level analysis to reveal the underlying structures that contribute to oppression or dominance. CDA is not only about critique but also about social transformation. It seeks to empower individuals and marginalized groups by raising awareness of the ways in which discourse can be used to maintain or challenge the status quo. That's a very serious and important endeavour in itself. By focusing on this "critical" aspect, you will move beyond identifying communication patterns and examine how language both reflects and shapes social structures and ideologies.
يبدو أن"تحليل المحتوى" من بين الطرق المعتد بها فيها في كل من العلوم الاجتماعية وتحليل الخطاب، وعليه، فالمنتظر أن تكون الفائدة أو الجدوى واحدة هذا من جهة، ومن جهة أخرى يُنتظر من المحلل/الناقد (وبالاستقراء والتتبع أغلب الكلمات التي تبدأ بالنون في العربية تدل على النفاذ والدخول في العمق) النفاذ إلى العمق، بعبارة أخرى ينتظر منه(الناقد) الفهم، والإسهام بعد ذلك في إنتاج معرفة من حول النص، فالتحليل أو النقد أو القراءة ليست تكرارا ولا إعادة وصف، ومن جانب آخر، يبدو لي أنه ليس بمقدور الباحث الكشف عن أهمية نتائج العمل النقدي في لحظة من اللحظات إلا بعد خضوع عمله للقراءة وإعادة القراءة في إطار "نقد النقد" أو بعد مضي الزمن الذي يكشف عن الفاعلية النقدية من خلال الرؤيا والاستشراف...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics