Firstly Pushpa - you need to do lots of reading around the different philosophical positioning related to discourse analysis (DA). Try the multiple works of Harris and Zellig to illuminate. You wouldn't need to employ content analysis with your DA approach - as that is a different methodology - and DA (according to which framework you adopt) has its own distinct analysis procedures - although, in many cases (unlike content analysis) there can also be no 'set' procedures. 

Many 'automatically' turn to the works of Michael Foucault - and the nature of your topic (and its related 'organisational' tensions) may well lend itself to him. However, I've always seen his work as the 'safest bet' and, at the same time, one of the more mis-represented.

My 'favourite' DA philosopher is Jacques Derrida (and his students Nancy & Lacoue-Labarthe's interpretations); alongside other influences - such as Levinas. For me, James Paul Gee's work is worth a look as well.

Hi Pushpa,

Please take a look at Grice's DA-Implicatures and the article by Musafa I attach. Long ago, I carried out an analysis on the implicatures on US political discourse. If you want it, I can send it to you.

Laura

http://www.ibi-academia.com/grices-principles-and-political-discourse/

Hi Pushpa, that sounds way too complicated  for one study.  Why don't you let the research question guide your method of analysis?

First, understand that discourse analysis have several shades. Try to understand these shades to know the approach you would use. Discourse Analysis is a very broad theory. Trying to narrow it into parts would be of immense help.

I agree with Robin that you have a lot of different things going on here. Although each of these methods might make its own separate contribution to the overall findings, it might make more sense to use fewer methods that are well integrated, so that one set of results connects as directly as possible to another set of results.

In particular, using too many different methods runs the risk of what is known as "divergence" so that you may end up with inconsistent results and no way to resolve the differences.

These kinds of things are widely discussed in Mixed Methods Research -- are you familiar with that field.

Thanks for all your useful comments and tips etc. Just for an insight into my research. My central research question is studying how journalists from my country operate at foreign frontlines. One of the subsidiary questions applies to how are their coverage or rather representation of the conflicts that they cover. Because the reportage includes a large sampling of television and newspaper reportage, I feel adopting discourse analysis makes the analysis of the sampling unmanageable. Therefore I plan to adopt interviews/oral history and content analysis But then again I would like your opinion if DA can make a large sampling manageable. 

Hello everyone. I am very much enjoying this thread. I just wanted to make a quick commment to ask if anyone can recommend a good starter text by Derrida in English that covers his approach to DA? That is, if there is such a thing of course...

Hi David,

There is Derrida For Beginners by Jim Powell - ISBN-13: 978-1-934389-11-9

Some might argue that it's a bit twee (and even has illustrations) - but it's as base a level that you can get to try and fathom some of his often inaccessible and complex philosophies

Thank you for the suggestion, although it looks like a Derrida book designed to be read on the beach!

Hi Pushpa,

A little while ago I found this publication on content and discourse analysis that might be useful:

https://www1.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/moynihan/cqrm/Newsletter2.1.pdf

I also find very useful Teun A. van Dijk’s publications (Discourse Studies, Critical discourse analysis, Strategies of discourse comprehension, Principles of critical discourse analysis, etc.).

Best,

Dan

David - in that case try - 'Derrida: A Very Short Introduction' by Simon Glendinning 

Despite it's mis-leading title - it's reasonably in-depth (and long enough) for those that require at least a surface understanding. 

Ok. I will see if I can find a copy. Thanks for the advice,

Pushpa, I note from your profile that you are interested in investigating Malaysian journalists. From my limited knowledge of Malaysian media there will be a large difference between what the journalist sees and reports and what ends up published in press or on TV.  I would think that you could select a sample of individuals who are journalists in different types of media (government run, independent etc.) and reduce 

I found that one of the best books to help guide the process is: Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (Eds.). (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage - In some ways I prefer the earlier 1990 edition which makes a much greater distinction between the phases of free coding and axial coding of texts.  Whilst I agree that the process isn't as defined as the 1990 version describes (hence the revision of this point in 2008), having a very clear distinction helps the researcher, new to this method, to visualise the stages in theory. 

Norman Fairclough and Laclau & Mouffe for discourse analyses, especially media/political texts/material

Stephen - just wondering what GT has to do with discourse analysis? DA is a philosophical approach - not a theoretical one. The likes of Derrida clashed with other existentialists as they all tried to make their philosophical mark during his time. He never clashed with the likes of Strauss, Glaser or Corbin. He probably actually never came across their work. 

Dean, I cannot but agree. Let us not conflate GT and DA. These are two kettle of fish. Discourse analysis has not only a philosophical root but also a sociolinguistic one, referring to A.N. Leontjew (language as work). Nevertheless bridging GT and DA could be quite a challenge, though it is not the obvious way.

Pushpa,

It seems to me important to consider who you are working with - what they tend to count as evidence. If historians/sociologists, I expect that you will need to stick  close to empirical similarities and differences between the professional activities and the products (texts) of different Malaysian Journalists. The 'war' too is a wide spectrum: does that include the Japanese occupation and the 'Emergency'(British Imperialism and the Communist fighting of the 50's - viz. "The Forgotten Wars": Bayly and Harper)? So too, are we discussing Malay or English (are you including Chinese / Peranakan and Indian communities)?

Ultimately, one has to come to terms with what the journalists publish. It is always helpful for me to first establish the overall shape of the texts (their characteristic subdivisions as a type of writing or speech). These sections contribute in describable ways to a pattern of discourse: a generic shape or text morphology if you like. Different journalists will choose differently, but need to cover similar tasks - this assists in characterisation of individual styles. From here you can argue for critical points of textual decision making ("cruces") which you can analyse on different scales: argument structure; metaphors; clause architecture (complex or additive styles);word choices; idioms etc. These help one argue for "motivated selection": issues and styles which are regular and absences which are also 'telling' ! Hope this helps settle down a tough domain. Best Wishes, DGB

Thanks David.

My emphasis in the study of not so much studying the journalsts products but more of their routines and practices therefore what would you think if I were to conduct content analysis on their news reports and images and subsequently oral history to capture their practices. I am applying memory framework as my theoretical framework. Your precious comments please

I wonder if your focus is on practices and routines why you choose content analysis as a method.

Oral history research tool will capture their practices in depth. While CA will just gather a glimpse of their routinization and practices while significantly understanding their representation of the events. Further elaboration to be gathered from their testimonies. You comments please

Thanks Dan. I had a brief look at the CA and DA publication you sent and it looks illuminating

I think we are back to the idea that what is called discourse analysis can mean many different things. At one end of the spectrum there is Conversation Analysis along with what British researhers such as Jonathan Potter call Discourse Analysis (or alternatively discursive psychology). At the other end of the spectrum we have highly abstract approaches such Foucault. 

So it would help to hear more what your goals are with regard to discourse analysis.

Hi Pushpa,

That depends whether you would like to opt for CDA or DA, nevertheless, for a "high quality" research in content analysis you should consider the following concepts and categories accordingly:

Words

Terms

Themes

Characters

Items

Time-space

Appearance

Frequency

Intensity

Subject matter

In addition, within subject matter you can evaluate the following concepts:

Standard, values, methods. traits, actors, authority, origins, location & time, conflicts, and endings

I wish you all the best with your dissertation.

Thanks Catherine. Very useful tips. Appreciate it