Some researchers argue that discourse analysis still lacks a clear methodology. It is considered impressionistic interpretations, depends on subjective matters such as: the strength of argument, truthfulness, and purity of purpose. This means if we lose one of these conditions, the results cannot be trusted.
The question to our colleagues: how to solve these methodological problems.
The issue there is perhaps that people sometimes try to assess a deeply qualitative methodology with quantitative tools and benchmarks. It's really about looking at the theoretical frameworks adopted by researchers when they adopt discourse analysis: often they situate themselves in phenomenology or critical theory, theoretical frameworks that embrace subjectivity because that is precisely what they seek to explore, unearthing innovative, rich and unchartered lived experiences. If readers then try to assess the success of such research designs and the use of qualitative methodologies with tools that are taken out of context (and are primarily suited to Positivist theoretical stances), then those criticism are simply off target. It's about going back to the researcher's explicit theoretical aims and the methodological choices that flow from this - and to choose criteria for evaluation that are genuinely suited to these intentions.
Thank you very much for your positive interaction. Prof. Frederic
I have two comments:
(1) How can we reach (objectivity of the subjective, as Bourdieu goes) in the case of phenomenology or critical theory?
(2) even if we assume that the researcher who uses discourse analysis has been launched from a suitable theoretical and methodological framework. The subjective problem remains the same. Because the problem is about the essence of discourse analysis, which we should think together to overcome this mystery.
I think that as long as you adhere to the word 'objectivity' you are pushed back to a Positivist framework which is not necessarily the framework researchers using discourse analysis are positioning themselves in. There are other criteria related to 'rigor' which are perhaps more pertinent. It becomes about the universal acceptability, relevance and usefulness of processes rather than the 'objectivity' of a methodological lens. The literature on 'rigor' in qualitative processes is now vast and offers this 'objective' reassurance you are perhaps seeking.
I have many justifications, pushing me towards objectivity. As the Arab proverbs say (the man who burns from the soup is blowing into the yogurt). We have a problem in analyzing religious discourse in Arab and Islamic societies, deeply affecting the daily lives of these societies, affecting stability and development, and fueling conflicts.
Away from the positivist
I agree with you on the need for a standard of rigor in discourse analysis. I have some solutions that I have applied. I benefited from Karl Popper's hypothetical deductive method and used to overcome problems in Norman Fairclough 's critical discourse analysis.
Interesting discussion. I think you're examining this from a socio-historical perspective and there is in this field perhaps an inherent yearning to see systems progressing towards development and improvement - and hence the idea of 'objective' progress. I work within education and discourse analysis is inherently rich here, in its subjectivity, in the sense it opens us to important perspectives, even if these are not perspectives we are comfortable with. I was discussing previously being aware and acknowledging theoretical frameworks, but the field within which you position yourself will also of course lead the researcher to a different lens on the usefulness of a methodological process.
Thank you so much, Prof. Frederic for this discussion, I have been here on this site just four days ago. I almost felt cold. But things are going on now.
Yes, the methodology depends on how the discourse system is formed, in the historical process, what types of discourse prevail within this system, and how it affects and is influenced by the social context. Before analyzing, we make deductive assumptions about the types of discourse we maybe meet, and try to test them during analysis. Instead of entering the forest and then looking for a road.
But I'm trying now to turn the table. By introducing a new approach to discourse analysis, using my Conflicted Rules Theory (CRT). Does this raise your scientific curiosity, to help the new Egyptian coming.