I agree that Conversational Analysis and discourse approaches aren't appropriate, given the lack of interaction. So, could you say more about what you have mind with regard to analyzing the "language" in the responses?

My own experience with qualitative analysis followed recommendations made by John Creswell, who has several texts on qualitative analysis and on research design. The approach we used was entirely manual and very time consuming. We transcribed interviews, highlighted words and phrases of interest (coding), grouped words and phrases into areas of similarity (theming), then wove an answer to the overarching research question from the themes that emerged. It was such a surprise when the final answer suddenly emerged! We had been flying blind for weeks and then, there the answer was. I am unsure if this will be useful to you at all. But thought I would share, just in case. This approach takes a LOT of time, and we engaged in a lot of discussion and review, so very large numbers of interviews would require use of software.

On that note, a colleague recently published some research (available at http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/cts/index.asp?action=fullTextPermaLink&articleId=443&galleyId=390) where he and his co-author used NVIVO 10 software to do his analysis. You can check his method if it would help.

Good luck, and I look forward to seeing the answers to your question.

If you are interested in the content (what is said), you can use thematic analysis or content analysis. In content analysis results could even be expressed in terms of numbers (frequencies) and be related with other numerical variables. Both methods are compatible with a social constructionist perspective (although maybe not with the more radical social construcccionist one).

If you are interested in the structure/form of the responses (how it is said), maybe some versions of narrative and discursive analysis, as you mention, may suit you.

I prefer grounded theory. I used it in a study on open responses of directors of Portuguese secondary schools [Seco, V. e Lopes, M. (2014). Between Compassionateness and Assertiveness: A Trust Matrix for Leaders. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 7(3), 622-644. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.1046]. You can also use the Bardin methodology.

Thank you all so much for your responses and suggestions, this is very helpful. I am familiar with coding and analysis, in-fact I have themed and coded the data pretty thoroughly to become familiar with the content. However, it really is the way that language is employed by participants that I am particularly interested in. David, I particularly want to look at the language tools that the participants use to demonstrate power and defend intergroup borders. I think, to this end, some of the tools of CA/DA (for example, repair work) may still be helpful - so perhaps I can choose a couple of tools that are appropriate from these approaches.

Have you tried TexLexAn? I think it may be helpful, specially if your data is not interactional. 

The content analysis cannot be seen as a linear approach. There are no simple and objective guidelines to conduct qualitative data analysis: each research is distinctive and the results depend on the knowledge, analytical skills and style of the researcher. In fact one of the challenges of content analysis is that there is no simple and correct manner to conduct it, in a way, that no unique defined standard or pattern has been established according to which content analysis should be carried on.

You can findin in the attached books the methodology or complementary methods that best fits in your investigation.

Best regards

I have to admit that I've never been a big fan on Conversation Analysis precisely because it downplays content to such an extent. Ii also sounds like you could have trouble with Potter's position in Discourse Analysis arguing against the study of POBAs (Perceptions, Opinions, Beliefs, and Attitudes).

One thought is whether you are familiar with the literature on "framing" -- a useful starting point for that is:

Benford & Snow, 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment

Annual Review of Sociology

Vol. 26: 611-639

A different thought that would move you very far away from CA/DA is something like the classic content analysis use of Key Word In Context (KWIC). With that approach, you would group together related search terms and then examine how they are used in actual text segments.

Hope that helps.

You also might want to try using a concordance such as AntConc:

http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/antconc_index.html

You input your data as a textfile and the software allows you to do searches so you can see patterns.

Another option is to try the Appraisal framework:

http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/index.html

You'd have to learn the taxonomy but analysing responses in terms of attitude, judgement, appreciation might help.

Good luck with it.