I'm learning the anti-feminist motives in the MP's for the 1-year time span. In this regard, I will analyze all the transcripts (for the sake of the validity of the data) of the speeches and will focus on the anti-feminist discourses. Still, I have suspicions in terms of the validity and reliability issues.
Yes, it is entirely appropriate. In fact, I just read an article in 'Language in Society' that analysed a public hearing in which (then Senator) Kamala Harris's questions were interpreted as hostile & interruptive despite the fact that her questions were very similar to a male senator's that were not viewed as interruptive.
As confirmed by Dr. Allen, there is quite a need to study biased and ideology-based language use using discourse analysis. I would even suggest a more politically and ideologically motivated framework (i.e., critical discourse analysis), which possesses the necessary tools to uncover bias, racism, power abuse, and ideology.
I think it is reliable. To what extent the results of a discourse analysis then really meet the criteria of reliability and validity is difficult. From my point of view, they do not have to meet these criteria, because a discourse analysis wants something else. It shows power structures, repetitions, legitimations in processes.
There are no standardised quality criteria for qualitative research. However, three quality criteria seem to make sense: transparency, intersubjectivity and range.
Your discourse analysis should be transparent, which means that you document the work steps and present them in a comprehensible way. In a further step, you could reflect on and discuss the subjectively obtained data, thus fulfilling the criterion of intersubjectivity. The presentation of the limitations and scope of your discourse analysis would also be important.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Histology
- Sectioning